discuss today's events in more detail now, with dr joelle grogan, a senior lecturer in law at middlesex universityow surprised where you buy the judgment? i was speechless for five minutes, which felt like five hours. i was sitting with a group of academics, and everybody else shouted at, but astonished. why? not necessarily unlawful, but that question of can this come to the court. among my colleagues, which decided that the frame of the questions we'd seen in the hearing was that the court seems to have seen that there are legal questions to be answered, that there are legal questions that should be asked to it, so the question of is this a question of law, not politics, we we re question of law, not politics, we were quite certain of. what was astonishing is not lawful, unlawful, but the leap at the court then took. we had expected that there would be a declaration of unlawfulness, a statement by the court if they found the advice to be unlawful, which they have. we expected a declaration of unlawfulness, saying, this is unlawful for these reasons, and of unlawfulness, saying, this is unlawfulf

i‘m joined by drjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer in law at middlesex university london, and robert craigs an engrossing day today, starting with you, what was your take on the day‘s advanced? i was on the edge of my seat today. we saw some of the strongest arguments this morning from sirjames and really powerful state m e nts from sirjames and really powerful statements that go to the core of governments argument which is this is political, even if it is political advantage, it is essentially a political question and then we saw a very different avenue. . . then we saw a very different avenue... aiden o‘neill. i am so used to saying other names. but we sought from then that went to of principles that government is subordinate to law and accountable to parliament and very strong state m e nts to parliament and very strong statements on principal and very different from the morning. what are your thoughts on the day? a day of two halves, it was incredibly detailed legally and there was a strong sense that he had taken on the feedback and pushed him to provide more case law and there have b

here with me now is drjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer at middlesex university, and i'm alsojoined byion constitution committee. —— constitutional affairs committee. first of all to you jeff king. the judges were worn today by the government's moyer not to stray into what he called "forbidden territory and typical minefield was quote but do you think they will?” and typical minefield was quote but do you think they will? i think that the judges will be extremely cautious when they decide what is a justice of both question or a question appropriate for them to answer and will only make a legal view if the evidence so clear that it supports the legal finding. they will steer clear of extremely broad questions and exercise some restraint. you will probably only get a judgement on the merits if the evidence is credible. and joe well, let's put that to you. do you think this is compelling for what you've heard? i will echo jeff a lot and what he has just said. the heard? i will echo jeff a lot and what he hasjust said. the key question, the two key questions is two parts which is first, th

i'm joined by drjoelle grogan — a senior lecturer in law at middlesex university london — and robert e tonight to discuss the day's events in more detail. by by the end of the night we will know more about the supreme court and what its ruling means but good to have you here. let's talk first of all about the reaction to today because of course in these divided times in which we live at the moment, people are conflating brexit and the ruling but actually the ruling was quite separate from brexit? not only is that through but lady hale specifically raised that point at the beginning of the hearing and the judgment being delivered, and she emphasised time and again that the decision on this case had nothing to do with brexit per se but as to whether parliament would be prorogued for a longer or shorter period of time. and the other thing, there was one barrister who was making very general submissions to the court and judge afterjudge afterjudge submissions to the court and judge after judge after judge intervened to say, why are you talking about this in terms of brexit issues? one jud

i'm joined by drjoelle grogan, senior lecturer in law at middlesex university, and robert craig, from constitution, politics. as with everything to do with brexit, we are in unprecedented and uncharted legal territory. i can't imagine, well, not since last gina miller case three ago, when we are asking the fundamental, constitutional questions, what should parliament do, what should the government do, what are the limits on those powers, and very importantly, what is the place of the supreme court in deciding and determining these questions? if you are one of those 11 supreme court judges, questions? if you are one of those 11 supreme courtjudges, what would your decision be? do you haven't heard the case yet of easy but what would be your inkling. the starting point has got to be the court decision in english law, —— at the divisional court decision. it was blistering, a thundering endorsement of the orthodox constitutional position. and that is that this is not a matter for the courts. absolutely, it is saying that just disability, a bright red line which has been in case law for a

let's speak to drjoelle grogan, a lecturer in law at middlesex university. the court decides whether a prime minister, for whatever political purposes, has the power to prorouge parliament, must be a seismic moment. everything in brexit has been seismic, but you are right. in constitutional terms, the separation of powers between what is political and legal, and matter for the courts, and what is only a matter for government and parliament, this question will be seismic. we pitted at the top of the programme, the ruling from the three judges in scotland today is a higher court, the ruling from the high court, the english court is taken of you that this is intensely political, that even if his ulterior motive was to close down parliament, to shrink the debate on brexit, that is his right. and if the supreme court upholds the scottish view, what are we going to get in the future? we are not going to get the courts intervening in every decision to prorogue parliament? as a matter of law and is a matter of the courts, their natural position in this is not to be

i'm joined by drjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer in law at middlesex university london, and robert craigome to you both. if i might start with you, you have been watching the proceedings all day, what have you made first of all of what have you made first of all of what you have seen and heard in court today? we are certainly witnessing constitutional history. we are seeing these essential debates on what parliament is and what it should be and also what the powers of government are and what they should be playing out in front of us. robert, how do you think it has gone today? fascinating because the original panel was supposed to be nine judges and what happened was the scottish senior courts came out on the other side of the argument, which was an absolute bombshell i think for many. because it meant to very senior courts, one in england and away and the most in your core into scotland to come out on opposite sides of the same legal issue in this created an increased the interest in the case and i don't know if it was connected directly but the supreme court panel went from nine to 11

i'm joined now by drjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer at middlesex university, and jeremy brier, a barristerish as simply as you can what the main arguments are here.|j recognise for anyone watching this is an incredibly complicated case and unprecedented areas, and the easiest way of looking at it is gina miller's team and join a cherry‘s tea m miller's team and join a cherry‘s team are asking the supreme court to ta ke team are asking the supreme court to take a team are asking the supreme court to takea a team are asking the supreme court to take a a few steps and the great leap. step one, this is thejustice point, whether the court being the supreme court, a court of law can go into a political territory, a political minefield as we just heard from lord keane, whether there's enough matter of law for the supreme court to be involved. if they say yes step two. step two is whether or not there is a legal orjudicial standard against which we can assess this advice, can we look into the past for principles or for cases that can guide us through whether or not this is lawful or unlawful? the

today, we've got the barrister and legal commentatorjeremy bryant, doctor joelle grogan from middlesex universitythis has been an incredible case anyway, landmark case for all sorts of reasons, constitutionally, politically. but now we've got a lawyer for sirjohn politically. but now we've got a lawyerfor sirjohn major politically. but now we've got a lawyer for sirjohn major who is going to be in there saying the current prime minister has been sort of telling porkies. it's an extraordinary moment of legal theatre, if you like. we have a former conservative prime minister who is actually being represented by a barrister who is a former conservative mp. lord garnier. standing up the supreme court and arguing the current conservative prime minister is essentially betrayed parliamentary sovereignty and his suspension of parliament should be ruled unlawful. it's particularly surprising given that john major is one of the only prime ministers that's actually been alleged to have used suspension himself for political reasons. that was 97. the cash for questions scandal. he will be accused of hypocrisy

and doctorjoel morgan from middlesex university.miller's side in this argument, summing up really the whole argument about this case. argument, summing up really the whole argument about this casem is the conclusion of an extraordinary three days of legal analysis at the supreme court. we have just heard from lord analysis at the supreme court. we havejust heard from lord panic, really closing for gina miller and he brought this back to basics in that brilliant, come way he has. he said to the court, there has been a lord about justice ability. said to the court, there has been a lord aboutjustice ability. that is this idea that it is a note go area for the court because it is politics but what david panic was saying, this is the sort of exercise you perform on a regularjudicial review. you look at it in the round, you look at the reasons given. you look at what the effect was. if the effect was to undermine parliamentary sovereignty and for the rug from under parliament's feed, you can get involved. he was very clear on that and cl

have the legal expert from the oxford faculty of law and also a senior lecturer in law at middlesex universityy saying, if you can allow this prime minister to suspend parliament, advise the queen to suspend parliament, where would that end? he gives an example of a prime minister could simply disband the army. its extreme examples, for sure. he mentions a prime minister as to prorogue parliamentjust mentions a prime minister as to prorogue parliament just when mentions a prime minister as to prorogue parliamentjust when the army act comes up for renewal or a prime minister proroguing parliament when it becomes apparent he or she will lose a vote of no confidence. they are extreme examples but it's important to bring out the principles, on what basis are we supposed tojudge principles, on what basis are we supposed to judge this if not on the basis of principle. boris johnson's explanation basis of principle. borisjohnson's explanation about the proroguing parliament was because there is a queen's speech coming but sirjohn major said that makes no sense and cannot be the explanation. effective

we've got drjoel grogan from middlesex university and stefan field from oxford university.but it is very nice to close the circle on the introduction, which as we heard was also quite colourful, references to the carpet, to the symbolism around the supreme court. a bit lighter i think on the legal arguments in this case. we did get into the legal meat eventually but it took us awhile and i think we got there there were some from lines that i don't think were fully developed, but yes, it was an interesting presentation. one of his arguments was doesn't really matter how many days you suspend parliament for, it's what the effect of that is, and what the intent of that is. that's right, i think that was picking up on comments made by lady hale on the first day of hearings when she suggested imagines not be about these two intention the prime minister had but also about what that practically means. that parliament can no longer scrutinise what government does in terms of prerogative powers and ultimately it cannot have this motion of no confidence, should it want to bring down

and a senior lecturer in law at the middlesex university of london. there is no difference in law as applied by the english court and by the court in edinburgh. so they are just disagreeing on an application of the same legal standards that is the first point. the second point, which i think is the key for the government's case, this is correct, the problem is non—justiciability so it is not for the courts to decide on what is a proper purpose for the prime minister to advise the queen on whether to prorogued parliament or not. so is that essentially what the government's case is? that this is a matter of politics, not the law, not the courts to decide? precisely. there is this distinction between what is constitutionally required and what is legally required and what is legally required and what is legally required and even if it was unconstitutional for the prime minister to seek that prorogation, it does not follow automatically that it was unlawful. and i do not think it was unlawful. lord pannick earlier on for gina miller arguing the opposite sa

cut through the legal jargon withjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer in constitutional law from middlesex university, let's start there. what is happening in the supreme court today? what we are beginning with today is the hearing of the appeals, so the submissions from both sides of the appeals coming from england and scotland. the barristers will come and present arguments for why or why not boris johnson's decision and present arguments for why or why not borisjohnson's decision to give advice to the queen to prorogue was law. this showing that british democracy is breaking point, or struggling under the strain of the moment? as with everything in brexit, we are in uncharted and unprecedented times. it is true that in the questions that have come to the court, it is something that is really at the strain of the separation of powers. we have four different fundamental powers that tell us how the british legal system works. parliament, government, the court and the queen. with all the questions we have been seeing over the last few years, we are seeing a strain as to what power can do what, and wha