Deputy EditorSolicitors Journal

Profession responds to Supreme Court ruling against Boris

Profession responds to Supreme Court ruling against Boris

The Law Society has stressed the judiciary’s role in defending democracy today, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that prorogation of parliament was invalid.

The Law Society has stressed the judiciary’s role in defending democracy today, following the Supreme Court’s ruling that prorogation of parliament was invalid.

Law Society president Simon Davis said: “Whatever you think of the decision, today’s Supreme Court ruling is a vital expression of the checks and balances that exist in our democracy”.

In a unanimous verdict of all 11 justices, the Supreme Court ruled earlier today that the prime minister’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful.

“Our court system and our judges are there so the law laid down by parliament can be interpreted. In a mature democracy it is crucial that the independence of this process is maintained”, Davis said. “A judge’s ruling is an expression of the law – not of their personal opinion. It would be disingenuous to conflate the two.”

Summarising the judgment today, Supreme Court president Lady Hale said: “This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect.

“This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued.”

Referring to the UK’s anticipated departure from the European Union on 31 October, Lady Hale described the move to prorogue parliament as taking place “in quite exceptional circumstances” and said: “the effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme”.

Former attorney general, Dominic Grieve QC, said he was not surprised by the outcome of the case, and added: “Suspending parliament was bogus and untrue and I’m delighted the Supreme Court has decided to stop this unconstitutional act in its tracks.”

Entrepreneur Gina Miller brought the case before the Supreme Court, represented by Mishcon de Reya partner James Libson. Following today’s ruling Libson said: "This case shows that our courts can be relied on to hold the executive to account when necessary and is evidence of the robustness of our system of separations of powers."

AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisement
Latest News

UN and coalition of NGOs write to Unilever to voice deep concern regarding victims of violence at Unilever tea plantation

Tue Sep 26 2023

Live Facial Recognition: How to Stay Within the Law

Tue Sep 26 2023

Ethics Institute launches taskforce to examine legal services to oligarchs and kleptocrats

Mon Sep 25 2023

Legal Departments See Higher Matter Volumes but Flat or Declining Budgets: Thomson Reuters 2023 Legal Department Operations Index

Mon Sep 25 2023

More Than 200 Employers Named And Shamed For Failing To Pay National Minimum Wage

Mon Sep 25 2023

Browne Jacobson collaborates with LGiU on report highlighting “critical” role of local government to hit net zero

Fri Sep 22 2023

BSB publishes new guidance on barristers’ conduct in non-professional life and on social media

Fri Sep 22 2023

The Chancery Lane Project expands to the USA

Thu Sep 21 2023

Delay in Final Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Thu Sep 21 2023
FeaturedThe Pre-Action Protocol review final report – full steam ahead?
The Pre-Action Protocol review final report – full steam ahead?
New report highlights the transformative effects of domestic abuse training on family lawyers
New report highlights the transformative effects of domestic abuse training on family lawyers
Asylum seekers stranded on Diego Garcia win challenge against return to Sri Lanka
Asylum seekers stranded on Diego Garcia win challenge against return to Sri Lanka
A solicitor’s stance on EDI in the workplace
A solicitor’s stance on EDI in the workplace
SJ Interview: Hannah Ambrose
SJ Interview: Hannah Ambrose
Whose human rights are more important, yours or mine?
Whose human rights are more important, yours or mine?