Victoria Sharp

---

Boris Johnson , the suspension of the British Parliament, is unlawful, Scotland's highest civil court to be decided.

A panel of three judges of the Court of Session to the benefit of a cross-party group of politicians, made the challenge the Prime Minister to move.

The judge said the PM.

< p > the UK government will appeal against the verdict, heard by the Supreme Court in London next week.

"Court of Session" decision throws out an earlier decision of the court, which is not broken, said last week that Mr Johnson was The Law .

The current five-week suspension of Parliament, a process known as proroguing, began in the early morning hours of Tuesday.

MPs are not scheduled to return to the Parliament until 14 October, when The Queen 's Speech outline Mr Johnson presented plans. The UK is due to leave the EU at 31. October.

the opposition parties demanded that Parliament immediately said again in The Wake of the court ruling, but in Downing Street, the would not happen in front of the Supreme Court decision on the case.

Downing Street also distanced itself from what the Scottish judges were politically biased, and insisted that the Prime Minister has "absolute respect" for the independence of the judiciary.

What to say to the Scottish judges? Mr Johnson had previously insisted that it was usual practice for a new government, prorogue Parliament, and that it was "to suggest nonsense," he was trying to undermine democracy.

But the Court of Session, the judges were unanimous in finding that Mr Johnson was not motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had led virtually the insane, The Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.

she added: "The court is, accordingly, to declare that the Prime Minister 's advice to HM The Queen and the agreement that followed, was unlawful and therefore null and of no effect. "

The Group of More Than 70 largely pro-Remain the members of Parliament and peers behind the legal challenge, under the chairmanship of SNP-MP-Joanna Cherry , said she felt "fully confirmed".

The parliamentarians appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session, which was released after their original challenge to the suspension of the Parliament by judge Lord Doherty last week.

Mr Doherty said Mr Johnson had not broken The Law by proroguing Parliament, and was a judge for the deputies and the voters, the Prime Minister -the actions rather than the courts.

said, But the three Inner house judges that they do not agree with Lord Doherty's judgment, because of this special agreement was a "tactic to disrupt the Parliament" rather than a legitimate use of the energy.

Mr Johnson has strong proposals, he said the attempt to undermine democracy One of the three judges, Mr Brodie, denied: "This was an outrageous case of a clear non-compliance with the generally accepted norms of conduct of public authorities.

", He stated that the main reasons for the agreement were to prevent or hinder Parliament in holding the Executive to account, and legislation with reference to the UK's EU-exit, and thus of the Executive branch to Escape a policy of no-deal without any further Parliamentary interference. "

Lord Drummond Young said that the British government had failed, a valid reason for the agreement, and adds: "The circumstances and, in particular, the length of the agreement, was to prevent that the purpose was, that such a control.

"The only conclusion that could be drawn was that the British government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict the Parliament. "

The High Court in London, says that the advice of the Prime Minister to The Queen to suspend Parliament is in fact "political" - Something the government argued that from the get go - and so it is not a matter that should involve the courts, because there is really no legal standards to be assessed on the basis of those.

of Scotland, the highest court disagreed, strongly.

It is decided that the Prime Minister , the consultation could be unlawful, if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary control. This is because the role of the Parliament in the control of the government is a vital pillar of our Constitution, which, naturally follows from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

- Two courts, two completely contradictory judgments.

you are now both on a collision course with the Supreme court of the country, the UK Supreme Court solved, where this contradiction. It will make a final decision on whether the Prime Minister acted unlawfully, or not - and that will determine whether the Parliament is to be recalled, in The Lead up to 31 October.

And that's how our Constitution works. Through what is known as judicial review, independent judges can stop the might of the government in their tracks, if that's what they've done to the Minister, is unlawful. Because, as the lawyers like to say, "Be you ever so mighty, The Law is above you. "

What was the reaction to the verdict? A spokesman for number 10 said it was "disappointed" by the decision and appeal to the Supreme court.

He added: "The British government must bring a strong national legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of providing this. "

There were angry protests from many members in the house of Commons before Parliament is suspended to be in the early morning hours of Tuesday, Scotland's first Minister, Nicola Sturgeon , said the decision was the "enormous constitutional importance", and that Parliament should be recalled immediately to to do it the "proper work of the control".

she added: "The Prime Minister , the behavior was outrageous and reckless, and has shown a complete disregard of the constitutional regulations and standards. "

Labour's shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer , said Parliament should be made as early as this afternoon.

He told the BBC: "Most of the people believe that Boris Johnson , but for the courts to find that he has illegally shut down Parliament, and that his motive was not, he said it was? This is very powerful.

"I'll call him to remind the Parliament. You can re-open it, and sit this afternoon and tomorrow, so we can discuss what happens next, and we are debating can be, this judgment. "

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson , who was one of the politicians involved in the case, said: "It is one reason why Boris Johnson has prorogued Parliament and, because he wants to, of its no-deal Escape, and he wants to, without control and without the observance of the normal rules. "

And Dominic Grieve , the former Conservative MP and the attorney-General, who now sits as an independent, said the Prime Minister should "resign very quickly," if he has deceived The Queen .

"Court of Session" is not The Queen to criticize the decision to prorogue Parliament Boris Johnson 's request; the rules on the advice of the Prime Minister gave The Queen . But the judgment raises a number of questions, which for The Palace and the constitutional role of The Queen .

Although The Queen was not expected to provide, the agreement - there was a precedent for the repeal of Parliament before The Queen 's speech, and acts on the advice of their Minister - it is simply a rubber stamp for the government of The Day .

How well The Queen was advised? Should The Palace , Downing Street urged to be heavier than the reasons for the agreement? The Queen was pulled into the Brexit morass, and The Questions that go to The Heart of their constitutional role.

If you has no discretion in the whole of the agreement, what their constitutional purpose? If you in its sole discretion, when would you use it? Traditionally, politicians step very carefully around these problems, so not to embarrass The Queen and upset the constitutional order. But these are far from traditional times.

What happens at The High Court in London? The judge at The High Court in London have their reasons, why a similar legal challenge by businesswoman Gina Miller was fired last week.

you said that it was due to the suspension of Parliament, a "purely political" movement, and was therefore not "a matter for the courts".

Gina Miller is not the appeal was against the decision in the case of Ms Miller's case as a "non-justiciable" - in the location determined by the court in the grounds.

the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton , and President of The Queen 's Bench Division, lady Victoria Sharp , said their conclusion was based on the "established and conventional reasons."

you said, the speed with which the Parliament passed a bill to prevent a no-deal Brexit highlighted, an error in Ms Miller's argument.

"the ability of The Parliament to move with speed, if it chooses to do so, undermines the underlying premise of the case for the plaintiff, the agreement would deny the Parliament, said the opportunity to do what it has done now," the judge.

What questions do you have about the latest Brexit developments?

boris johnson, uk parliament, joanna cherry, scotland brexit, unlawful parliament suspension, court of session, brexit, british constitution

Source of news: bbc.com