although it was considered by my friend, lord pannick.nd sought to infer some alternative, sometimes referred to as clandestine nine, purpose. but before going on to address that, i should also just noticed the point made by the board president about the absence or otherwise of a witness statement —— the lord president. my noble friend, lord pannick, made some considerable, placed some considerable weight up on this. if you could turn to paragraph 55 of the lord president's opinion. he said, there is remarkably little set about the... in the respondent's pleadings. although the court would not expect an affidavit, scottish equivalent of an affidavit, scottish equivalent of a witness statement, from a government minister or official testifying to the reason, and he then refers to the procedure, lord walker delivering the opinion of the minority, it would expect... it was not the view of the other house that somehow the absence of an affidavit was of any significance or lead to the drawing of any adverse inference whatsoever. in the context

lord pannick is a silky advocate. he relied quite heavily on theoretical argument. from the academic theory, to the case law. he did move on eventually that it was interesting to see how much weight lord ten point had placed on academic opinion and comments. the central case, borisjohnson tried to silence parliament because he sees it as silence parliament because he sees itasa silence parliament because he sees it as a threat and an obstacle. —— lord pannick. to make the ii judges certain that was the motivation of the prime minister. what lord pannick said, in the absence of a witness statement, the court was entitled to infer from the evidence they had got and enjoy inferences from that in the evidence of a rebuttal from the government, he made a lot of claim about the evidential side. because we have not really had any sort of written statement from the government, from the prime minister explaining the decision to suspend parliament. has not been a witness statement, that has not happened. we have got the skeleton argument setting out the position of the govern

representing the remain campaigner gina miller against the government, lord pannick told the justicesson had acted unlawfully. no prime minister has abused his powers, in the manner in which we allege, in at least the last 50 years. without a written constitution, the relationship between the three pillars of uk governance is always evolving. you've got parliamentary power, of course, based over there. then you've got the government's power, focused on 10 downing street, behind the walls of whitehall. and then you have the power of the courts, ultimately resting here, at the supreme court. and what we're seeing this week is that balance of power being tested. the geography of westminster reveals the triangle of power at the heart of the state. lord pannick focused on the relationship between parliament and government, describing ministers as the junior partner. he also argued the courts were entitled to rule on the legality of downing street's suspending, or proroguing, parliament. the prime minister's motive was to silence parliament for that period, because he sees parliament as an

today lord pannick focused on the relationship between mps in parliament and the gent headed by the pmowning street, describing ministers as the junior partner. he also argued that the courts were entitled to rule on the legality of number 10 suspending r' proroguing parliament. >> the prime mini's motive was to silence parliament for that period, because he seess parliament obstacle. reporter: lord pannick quoted fr this bbc interview to suggest boris johnson's real purpose s achieving brexit by halloween. prime min. johnson: the best way to do that is if our friends and partners over the channel don't think that brexit can be s pehow blocked liament.rt re: this afternoon mr. johnson's lawyer in court had his turn to make the arguments. >> the prime minister will take all necessary steps to comply with any declaration made by tho t. reporter: he'd come with an undertaking from boris johnson, but he also referred to westminster's balance of power, suggesting t supreme court would be meddling in what were political matters if they ruled against the government. one judge wanted to know m

lord pannick? good morning, my ladies and lord.or facilitating so speedy an appeal on these important matters. the court has a list of counsel appearing in these appeals. on behalf of mrs miller, i want to make a submission on what we see as the three main points which arise from these appeals. may i please identify these issues and then develop my submissions on each of them? the first of them as we say on the facts get the prime minister advised her majesty to prorogue parliament for a period as long as five weeks because he, the prime minister, wished to avoid what he saw as the risk that parliament, during that period, would take action to frustrate or to damage the policies of his government. and on this first issue, we will adopt the substance of the reasoning of the inner house of the court of session, and briefly add some further points, in particular, on the relevance of the failure of the prime minister to produce a witness statement, either by himself or by the cabinet secretary, responding to the allegations as to his m

representing the remain campaigner gina miller against the government, lord pannick told the justicesunlawfully. no prime minister has abused his powers, in the manner in which we allege, in at least the last 50 years. without a written constitution, the relationship between the three pillars of uk governance is always evolving. you've got parliamentary power, of course, based over there. then you've got the government's power, focused on 10 downing street, behind the walls of whitehall. and then you have the power of the courts, ultimately resting here, at the supreme court. and what we're seeing this week is that balance of power being tested. the geography of westminster reveals the triangle of power at the heart of the state. lord pannick focused on the relationship between parliament and government, describing ministers as the junior partner. he also argued the courts were entitled to rule on the legality of downing street's suspending, or proroguing, parliament. the prime minister's motive was to silence parliament for that period, because he sees parliament as an obstacle. lord

representing the remain campaigner gina miller against the government, lord pannick told the justicesjohnson had acted unlawfully. no prime minister has abused his powers, in the manner in which we allege, in at least the last 50 years. without a written constitution, the relationship between the three pillars of uk governance is always evolving. you've got parliamentary power, of course, based over there. then you've got the government's power, focused on 10 downing street, behind the walls of whitehall. and then you have the power of the courts, ultimately resting here, at the supreme court. and what we're seeing this week is that balance of power being tested. the geography of westminster reveals the triangle of power at the heart of the state. today, lord pannick focused on the relationship between mps in parliament and the government, headed by the pm in downing street, describing ministers as the junior partner. he also argued the courts were entitled to rule on the legality of number 10's suspending, or proroguing, parliament. the prime minister's motive was to silence parliame

lord pannick says... allegation and it would have been entirely conventional and to be expected that a statement would be made in which it was averred that those documents contain the only reasons for the prorogation and there is no explanation as to why that convention was not followed. no, there is in, but the answer is you have the documents that were produced on the documents that were produced on the documents that were produced were at the height of government, as i have the letter saying... the central point i am making is that those were not in reaction to the case that was being made against them. one needs to be a bit careful of that because otherwise any claimant can turn up and make any allegation and say there we are, and now i would like to cross—examine you about it. there are questions there but the basic legal position is that the court can operate and we respectfully invite them to operate, on the basis of the line —— underlying documents that have been produced, particularly documents o

but i would disagree with jeremy that this is something purely political, lord pannick made it clearsaying we can go away and say how long you can prorogued. there are these constitutional limits, there are proper purposes. and very near not balancing the right purposes they wish to agitate your powers, that really is a job for them to step in and say this is no longer a law and that has allowed to establish judicial review, this ability to control decisions of the executive by saying that is not the right purpose. the charge against boris johnson from lord pannick was, you are trying to silence parliament because it was a threat to you, an o bsta cle ? because it was a threat to you, an obstacle? that is right and that is what they said before the scottish court of session. the difficulty i am pointing to is how does it quite like this on the evidence available will be how the documents of the state m e nts will be how the documents of the statements and come to any of on questions like that? i remember the case a couple of years ago when they try tojudicially case a couple of years

and lord pannick, as you can see, is speaking again. submitting that there is no obligation to file witness evidence. she erred the court not to punish the secretary of state for not filing evidence. she referred to the scarcity of resources, heavy litigation burden, they need to prioritise resources, none of which factors are relied on in the present case. and the court of appeal then approves the statement at first instance by the judge. approves the statement at first instance by thejudge. he approves the statement at first instance by the judge. he observed, where a secretary of state fails to put before the court witness statements to explain the decision—making process and the reasoning underlying the decision, they take a substantial risk in general litigation where a party elects not to call available witnesses to give evidence on a releva nt witnesses to give evidence on a relevant matter, the court may draw inferences of fact against that party. the basis for drawing adverse inferences of fact against the secretary of state in

lord pannick said that effectively borisjohnson, the lord pannick said that effectively boris johnsont lord keem, representing the government, in his closing remarks said the 11 supreme courtjudges must not go into this political minefield and must not stray into forbidden territory. let's get this report from our correspondent, richard lister. it seemed at times like an item and without end but those who gathered outside the supreme court today intent on either stopping a coup or stopping the eu knew that the argument inside at least would end today. but not before one from conservative prime minister at the opportunity to offer a damning assessment of the action is a boris johnson in suspending parliament. his lawyer said it was inescapable that the real reason was to avoid scrutiny of brexit and the government had not told reasons set out in the documents put before the court by the prime minister cannot be true and complete reasons for the decision. he said suspending parliament was motivated by mr johnson's political interests. the court also heard from raymond mccord, who warned

here's part of the appeal from her barrister lord pannick.he prime minister has not made a witness statement. for the executive to use a prerogative power to seek to evade control by parliament stands the basic principles of constitutional law on their head. the entire legal battle is playing out against the fact that the uk is due to leave the eu without a deal at the end of octrober and there is currently no deal between the uk and the eu on how that will work. that is of no consequence to those 11 judges on the supreme court. there's plenty of pressure and passion, as you can see from the the reception that gina miller received when she left court today. booing. we want brexit now! brexit now! the supreme court also considered from the scottish case, which was brought by a number of people, including the scottish national party mpjoanna cherry. the scottish court found borisjohnson had acted unlawfully in suspending parliament. the counterargument is being made by the advocate general for scotland, who's arguing that courts should not be i

summing up his case against the government, lord pannick said the suspension should be lifted as soonrnment's senior advocate in scotland, lord keen, said the courts should not be dragged into politics. my colleague ben brown is at westminster this afternoon. we should get bad judgment from the 11 supreme court justices we should get bad judgment from the 11 supreme courtjustices early next week, as you say. we are assuming monday or tuesday. it is only the second time by the way, in the history of the supreme court that we have had such a big panel, 11 judges considering this hugely important constitutional, legal, political question really. this is the grey area of the unwritten constitution between the grey area between that and the law and politics. lady hale, president of the supreme court judges saying none of this is easy. they will have to wrestle over this over the next few days as to whether borisjohnson did over the next few days as to whether boris johnson did break over the next few days as to whether borisjohnson did break the law, acted unlawfully when he suspended 01’

yes, i think he will look at the legal standard that lord pannick suggested and say that there is nohave heard about proper purpose and improper purpose. there was a discussion yesterday about when you have a powerful statute, you can look at that to work out what the purposes, but this is not a power that comes from statute, it is a common law power that comes from, what we talked about in the first miller case. a prerogative power. there is no way for the law to latch onto a proper and improper purpose. no way for the law to latch onto a properand improper purpose. i no way for the law to latch onto a proper and improper purpose. i think you can focus on those angles of the case to say that really, when we talk about length, that is for politicians to decide not the courts. interesting yesterday, wasn't it, jeremy, that a lord keen of the government was asked by one of the government was asked by one of the government was asked by one of thejudges, well, what happens if we say that mrjohnson has acted unlawfully and what follows from that? yes, the one thing that nobody really know

it's not, departing from what lord pannick said, is it all right for two days, three weeks, how far canitution that's why i constantly emphasise, it's certainly how long is this prorogation four. but when is this prorogation four. but when is it being used and what is the constitutional background, what are theissues constitutional background, what are the issues that would otherwise be before parliament for it to call the executive to account and potentially to legislate on. in this case, it's the potential for leaving the european union on exit date with or without a deal. we know that the intention of parliament in the 2018 withdrawal act clearly in terms of section nine and 13 of that, say that parliament has to be involved in those decisions, in the decision as to the terms upon which we might properly leave the european union, this is not a matterforforeign affairs prerogative or the like, for the crown to enter into such treaties, international agreements as it thinks best. parliament is involved and parliament is involved in part because of this court ‘s decision in miller. pick

lord pannick said that it was critical for the rule of law that a prime minister did not have u nfetteredred discretion, in other words, total freedom, to unfettered discretion, in other words, totalfreedom, to suspend parliament, otherwise an autocratic prime minister could do that for six months, for a year. he pointed to a handwritten memo from the prime minister which refer to the september sitting of parliament as a rigmarole. to illustrate the fact that he said the prime minister did not understand the constitutional significance of pa rliament‘s not understand the constitutional significance of parliament's roll over the next five weeks. the government lawyers have just got onto their feet, they will be arguing that this is not a proper matter for the courts to decide at all, and we will hear more from them this afternoon. much more coverage here from westminster throughout the afternoon on the bbc news channel. and you can also follow all the political developments on the bbc news website and app. boris johnson's love borisjohnson's love of latin is well known, he might now be thi

lord pannick for gina miller says in the absence of that witness statement, it speaks volumes and showstrying to hide what he was really up to. thank you. there will be three days of hearings at the supreme court. in front of the ii justices, eight men and three women. we may have to wait until next week to get their judgment. simon. the trial has got under way of four people accused of murdering girl scoutjodie chesney. the 17—year—old was fatally stabbed while playing music in a park with friends in east london in march. danjohnson is at the old bailey. what happened in court today? the prosecution has onlyjust started outlining its case in front of the jury. thejury was outlining its case in front of the jury. the jury was told jody szczes ny was jury. the jury was told jody szczesny was sat in the park on a friday night in early march with a group of friends, they have been listening to music and smoking cannabis. the prosecutors said out of the blue, two men ran across the field towards the park and one jumped the fence and came through a gate and walked up tojodie and without a wo

it was mentioned by lord pannick briefly.it was because the court has said that it was not even a preceding in parliament or something imposed upon it. this was something not really this crust, hasn't really been analysed, people will think about that you look carefully for a long time. thank you forjoining us. let's show you some live pictures of the house of commons now. there is the house of commons now. there is the chamber of the house at the moment. the order of counsel to prorogue parliament has now been quashed by the supreme court, so the immediate effect of that is that parliament can reopen pretty much anytime mps want to walk back into the chamber. we can how a little bit of reaction from blackford and anna soubry moments after that judgment was handed down by lady hale, president of the supreme court justices. this is a very serious matter, it has huge constitutional consequences. it's a fantastic day for democracy. and at last the people of this country are taking back control. we are all fed up with brexit, we

lord pannick: the seventh. a week or so. not precisely, but the seventh of october. if i understood correctly by him my lord and by my lady. i say there was no coherent answer to that question. the documents in which lord keen relies in relation to this matter include, let us not forget, the note dated the 16th primeust in the minister's own handwriting. yesterday by my friend mr. o'neill and i don't asked the court to go back, but it is in the bundle, tap 39 -- tab 39. it is the one where the prime minister says the whole september session, these are her -- his words, is no more than a mpsarole to show the public earn their trust. to happy for the courts follow lord keen's approach he articulated a few moments ago. read this document fairly and with an open mind. there is no need to adopt any .ncendiary language the document speaks for itself. what does it show? it shows the prime minister's failure to understand that parliament has the sovereign body will wish to ask questions of the executive. possibly enact more legislation. -- do soish to do show during the sept

lord pannick, who is acting against the government on behalf of businesswoman gina miller, argued thatiny functions over the executive for a period of exceptional lengths, longer than any in the past 40 years, for no rational reason, and at a time when the constitutional principle of the executive being answerable to parliament is of vital importance. lord keen, who's representing the government, suggested the court would be meddling in political matters if it ruled against the prime minister. how, in the context of that political minefield is the court to apply on the issue of purpose or improper purpose on legitimate political purpose, or illegitimate political purpose, or illegitimate political purpose? political purpose, or illegitimate political purpose ? how political purpose, or illegitimate political purpose? how these concepts to be defined and applied in the ks context? the applicants and the petitioners are inviting the courts into forbidden territory and into what is essentially a minefield, and ill—defined minefield. that the courts are not with the greatest of respect, pr

. —— pannick.iscussions between them and they managed to get themselves to a majority, it can go that way and if it doesn't it could it is extremely difficult to call. alison, i know you studied these things carefully, the 11 justices, individually some have different views really on whether the courts should intervene in this case so in a way, is it crucial, the floating judges in the middle, who might be persuaded either way? in some senses, yes, it's not to say they have different political decisions, it's to recognise some of them look more closely at case law, some of them think it's legitimate for the courts to intervene more than others and so they will be drawing on past cases, past understanding of how far the logo and also within the supreme court you have those who are more expert in public law and those who are more expert in family law commercial lots of they will be sharing expertise and talking to each other and i think they will be drawing on those cases and working out which way to

lord pannick said it wasn't right that prime minister should have an unfettered power to suspend parliamentior minister could suspend the six months, for a year, for the government, the qc said this was a matter the proroguing of parliament was a matter of high politics and policy and that it wasn't really a matter that the courts were entitled to stick their noses into and adjudicate upon. and sirjames also pass comment on the bill that is going through parliament at the moment, to stop an ideal brexit, and he said it looks likely that bill will complete its passage through parliament and if so it will render this particular legal challenge perhaps a little bit, his precise word, i think, perhaps a little bit, his precise word, ithink, it perhaps a little bit, his precise word, i think, it would perhaps a little bit, his precise word, ithink, it would render perhaps a little bit, his precise word, i think, it would render it rather pointless. we are expecting a judgment tomorrow morning in this case. but there is a sense that the politics is loudly overtaking the legal challenges here. tha