Gina Miller

---

This was no ordinary case before the Court . The battle in the Supreme Court on the shutdown of Parliament is a historical examination of the powers of the Prime Minister , the deputies and the courts.

And she conquered the audience: The First day, the video stream was accessed 4. 4 million times.

But if you don't like all the twist and turn in Three Days of legal argument, here is a guide to what is happening and why it matters.

The ruling is expected to be available in week 23. September.

Why is the case important?

For some in the crowds of people protesting outside, is the result of a British EU exit seems to be in limbo.

But the Court was keen to emphasize That the case of Escape, actually. Lady Hale , President of the Supreme Court , said it is "concerned", whether it was allowed for Boris Johnson to suspend Parliament through a process called agreement.

That set the stage for a battle over the whole of the British Constitution and the limits of the Prime Minister forces. He has to decide by his advice to The Queen , where the Parliament sits and when not? He can be prevented from suspending in some cases?

demonstrators against the closure and for Brexit - the Court

listen to the legal BBC correspondent Clive Coleman said it is "a stress-test for our unwritten Constitution".

Since there is no place where all The Rules of Government written down in the Supreme Court have been, - which was Only founded formally in 10 years ago - has to decide between the conflicting legal arguments.

Why it has to happen in the Supreme Court case?

Two of the highest courts, one in England And One in Scotland, was formerly called the decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks - Only to come to opposite conclusions.

In Scotland, the Inner House of the Court of Session, because it had the "improper purpose of stymieing the Parliament," in the crucial period before the 31. October Brexit Period.

But in the English High Court , with a different legal system to Scotland, the judge said it was legal because it was a political question, not a decision for the courts.

fighters Gina Miller was the search for a second Supreme Court victory over the Government Of the SNP Joanna Cherry led the case meant in the Scottish Court

the all parties to bring their arguments before the Supreme Court , so it could be the cul-de-SAC to break.

The English case was to give the activists, the forced previously, the Government , MPs a vote on the release of the Brexit process. She was backed by former Prime Minister Sir John Major .

A group of More Than 70 parliamentarians, led by the SNP is Joanna Cherry QC, launched the Scottish case.

lawyers for the Government were to appeal the decision in Scotland and defended the judgment in England.

What to say to the activists against the suspension of Parliament?

The lawyers against the suspension sought to prove, That for five weeks - the longest period for 40 Years - at a crucial political moment.

Lord Pannick QC, acting for Gina Miller , said: "The extraordinary length of the agreement in this case is strong evidence, not to mention That the Prime Minister was the subject of Parliament for this period, because he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the pursuit of his political goals. "

He said the Government is "junior partner" to the Parliament and not claim "unlimited power" to close it.

Sir John's lawyer, Mr Garnier QC, argued the documents by the Government before the Court , "the real reason" for the suspension.

He said the "inescapable" conclusion was in the shutdown of Parliament before the EU summit on 17 and 18 October .

Lord Pannick QC, acting for Gina Miller , said the Prime Minister saw the Parliament as an obstacle to his political objectives

Aidan O'neill QC, the twists and turns colorful, the Scottish MP, for his color. He summed up the case, as the "mother of parliaments, by The Father of the lie", referred to as the "Dirty Tricks ", and said the judge should not treat documents of the Government as "gospel".

annoyed That the Government lawyers, which criticized his "rude and naughty language" and accused him of a preconceived conviction That the documents are "a sham".

But Lord Pannick also argues That the judge did not necessarily come to the conclusion That Mr Johnson's motives "malignant neoplasms". You could just decide That its effect and the impact was against The Law , what the Prime Minister intended.

What to say to the Government ?

Sir James Eadie QC, representative of the Government , said it was "to accuse untenable" to obstruct to try it to Parliament.

He said the Government had a right to "a free space, if it is subject to everyday life" to prepare for a "Queen's Speech - the would. Mr Johnson of the new Government , the plan for the Legislation and to counter Leakage problems

Mr Keen QC, representing the Government , said it was "forbidden territory" for judges to intervene in political disputes about when and how the Parliament is suspended.

Government lawyer, Mr Keen said the activists were said in the drawing of the judges in a "mine field"

He, there is no law determining the length of the agreement of the Parliament and instead, the length of each session of the constitutional Convention.

dishes "not on the borders and urge on The Business of Parliament," or you would have said to walk in an "ill-defined minefield," he said.

Who decides the case?

of the 12 judges of the Supreme Court , 11 in the rule, in this case - so it may not be a split decision.

Most of the judges are English, two Scottish, while Northern Ireland and Wales .

BGH-The President , Lady Hale , (middle row), leads the 11 judges who will decide the case

The President of The Court , Lady Hale QC, is one of Three Women on the Court . A former academic and public servant, you had a career, the groundbreaking-of-Court contributions, becoming The First woman law Lord and judge of the Supreme Court .

When the case came to an end, she spoke for all to watch, as you said: "so simple". But She Said the judge would produce a response "as soon as we can".

What happens now?

The judges have to make in a room. The Most junior justice is requested, by Convention, its view first. Mr Sales QC is the junior.

The judges may agree to write all your own judgments, or is it an agreement to write a judicial verdict, with the other.

the judgments are usually handed down in the morning, on A Wednesday . A judge usually reads a short five-minute summary in the courtroom.

Full copies will be Made available at this point on the Supreme Court website, together with a shorter press summary.

What are the possibilities for the judges?

If the Government wins, then nothing changes: the Parliament will remain suspended until 14 October . But things are complicated when you have to decide, Mr Johnson acted unlawfully.

In the documents submitted to the Court , the Government said it could see three options if the Court ruled against you and in some scenarios it could suspend Only , the Parliament again.

The Court may rule That the lockout was unlawful, but their reasons, perhaps the opportunity is open to proroguing Parliament for the same period in a different, legitimate way. The judge could decide, to remember, That the Only legitimate option for the Prime Minister to the Parliament before October 14. Lawyers for Mr. Johnson said he would keep, but it would require "to work out far-reaching regulations", a new Queen's Speech and get ready for the ceremonial State Opening of Parliament. The judge could explain That the suspension was unlawful, and, therefore, the Parliament remains In Session , As If it had never stopped. The Government said it could always check still be able to stop again.

But Lord Pannick said, everything That had to do with the judges was to declare the suspension unlawful. The Prime Minister would not have to take action, and the speaker of The Commons and Lords could decide How To proceed.

boris johnson, uk parliament, unlawful parliament suspension, uk supreme court, brexit

Source of news: bbc.com