At the close of Supreme Court proceedings on Thursday, there was quite a lot of to and fro about what it would actually mean if the judges find the prime minister unlawfully misled the Queen when proroguing parliament.
Which was understandably interpreted by some knowledgeable observers as a signal that the judges may indeed find that Boris Johnson unlawfully prevented MPs from sitting at this critical time for the UK.
The big issue they have to decide is whether they have a locus at all, whether the PM’s use of the royal prerogative to send MPs home for five weeks is – in the jargon – justiciable, or an issue for any court.
The consensus among lawyers is that those arguing for the prosecution, Pannick and O’Neill, had the best of this argument.
And if they did, lawyers tell me it is open and shut that the judges will take the further step of finding that Johnson exercised the royal prerogative for an improper purpose; namely to prevent MPs and Lords from exercising their most important duty and function, scrutinising the PM (the executive branch of government) and legislating.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in