
brexit countdown_bg Created with Sketch.

Scottish judges delivered a hammer blow to Boris Johnson today by sensationally ruling Parliament was suspended illegally - because he had misled the Queen.

An Edinburgh court decided that prorogation was unlawful because the Prime Minister's intention had been to 'stymy' scrutiny of his Brexit policy by MPs rather than to pave the way for a new legislative programme, as he claimed.

The shock outcome sets for a titanic showdown at the Supreme Court in London on Tuesday - with the risk that the monarch will be dragged into the bitter Brexit war.

As Westminster descended into chaos, Remainers claimed that the prorogation of Parliament for five weeks - which happened in the early hours of yesterday morning by Royal proclamation despite unprecedented protests by MPs - was now null and void.

Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer and the SNP's Joanna Cherry - one of those who brought the case - demanded the Houses be recalled 'immediately'.

Rebel ringleader Dominic Grieve said Mr Johnson must resign if he misled the Queen about his motives, while Labour's David Lammy accused him of 'deceiving' the monarch.

Meanwhile, union baron Len McCluskey made the extraordinary suggestion that Mr Johnson should be put under 'citizens arrest'.

There was also fury after No10 sources swiped that the Scottish courts had been 'chosen for a reason', with critics accusing ministers of 'pitiful' behaviour and undermining the rule of law.

Attorney General Robert Buckland tried to calm the row by tweeting that he had 'total confidence' in the independence of judges.

Downing Street denied that the PM had misled the Queen. Pressed repeatedly by journalists on the allegation, a spokesman said: 'I think I am fairly clear that the reasons for prorogation have been consistent throughout.'

No10 sources insisted Parliament will stay prorogued until the Supreme Court rules next week, and suggested another Royal Proclamation will be needed for MPs to start sitting again before October 14.

A UK Government spokesperson said: 'We are disappointed by today's decision, and will appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

'The UK Government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.'

Boris Johnson suffered another setback today as Scottish judges ruled his suspension of Parliament is unlawful. The case is expected to be appealed further at the Supreme Court

Attorney General Robert Buckland (left) tried to calm a row after a No10 source suggested Remainers had picked the Scottish courts because they were more likely to win. Lawyer Jo Maugham, who was involved in the Edinburgh case, said he believed Parliament was no longer prorogued. Downing Street said it did not agree (right)

SNP MP Joanna Cherry, pictured centre in Edinburgh today, described the ruling as 'historic' and 'fantastic'

Judge Lord Doherty dismissed a challenge against the planned prorogation at the Court of Session last Wednesday, saying it is for politicians and not the courts to decide.

But a panel of three judges in Edinburgh overturned that decision.

A summary of the judgement said: 'The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.

Could Boris Johnson be forced to recall MPs? Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks at a key pre-Brexit time for the country followed a well-trodden constitutional path. The decision to shut down the legislature is ultimately taken by the Queen, but on the advice of the prime minister of the day and the Privy Council. The monarch spoke with Mr Johnson by telephone before Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg flew to Balmoral at the end of August to present the Government's plan in person. She gave the Government a short window in which to carry out the prorogation and the decision was taken to enact it on Monday, after Boris Johnson made one last (failed) attempt to convince MPs to back his plea for a general election in October. The pageantry involved led to chaotic scenes in the Commons in the early hours of Tuesday when opposition MPs tried to stop Speaker John Bercow accompanying Black Rod to the Lords, where the proclamation was read out and officially enacted. Today's decision in Scotland is unlikely to change anything immediately, despite calls for the doors of Parliament to be reopened today. But the decision of the Supreme Court in London on Tuesday would carry full political and legal weight. As the court of last resort, if it upholds the ruling that Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen was unlawful it would effectively declare the shutdown null and void. It is unclear exactly what would happen next - as Parliament would resume sitting, but the Government has not tabled any business. Advertisement

'All three first division judges have decided that the PM's advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.

'The court will accordingly make an order declaring that the prime minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.'

At the hearing, Judge Lord Carloway told the court: 'We are of the opinion that the advice given by the Government to her majesty the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful and that the prorogation itself was unlawful.'

The case is now set for the Supreme Court in London where it is expected to be heard alongside a similar case brought by campaigner Gina Miller.

That challenge was rejected by the High Court last week - but judges gave permission for it to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Giving detailed reasons for rejecting that case today, High Court judges said the decision to prorogue Parliament was 'purely political' and therefore not capable of challenge in the courts.

Ms Miller's claim was supported by former prime minister Sir John Major, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti and the Scottish and Welsh governments.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp delivered their ruling at a brief hearing in London on Wednesday.

In their judgment, they stated: 'We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable (capable of challenge). It is not a matter for the courts.'

They added: 'The Prime Minister's decision that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political.

'They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.'

They said it was 'impossible for the court to make a legal assessment of whether the duration of the prorogation was excessive by reference to any measure'.

The court also said that legislation passed by Parliament, which requires Mr Johnson to seek an extension to the current Brexit deadline of October 31 if no deal is reached with the EU, had 'undermined' Ms Miller's case.

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said Mr Johnson 'broke the law by closing down Parliament

Labour MP Kevin Brennan went to the Commons chamber today to insist that it should still be sitting

The judgment stated: 'The ability of Parliament to move with speed when it chooses to do so was illustrated with clarity and at the same time undermined the underlying premise of the cases advanced by both the claimant and the interveners, namely that the prorogation would deny Parliament the opportunity to do precisely what it has just done.'

Those who pushed the case have been quick to celebrate the outcome.

Ms Cherry, one of the Scottish MPs who brought the challenge, tweeted: 'Huge thanks to all our supporters & our fantastic legal team who have achieved the historic ruling that #prorogation is #unlawful'

Jolyon Maugham QC, the anti-Brexit barrister who was second petitioner in the case, said the Supreme Court would hear the case next week.

He tweeted: 'We have won. Appeal begins in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

'We believe that the effect of the decision is that Parliament is no longer prorogued.

'I have never been able to contemplate the possibility that the law could be that our sovereign Parliament might be treated as an inconvenience by the Prime Minister.

'I am pleased that Scotland's highest court agrees. But ultimately, as has always been the case, it's the final arbiter's decision that matters.

'We will convene again in the Supreme Court next week.'

Sir Keir said: 'I welcome the Court's judgement. No one in their right mind believed Boris Johnson's reason for shutting down Parliament.

What happens next in the Brexit crisis? Here is how the coming weeks could pan out: September 14-17: Lib Dem conference takes place in Bournemouth September 17: Supreme Court hears case on whether prorogation of Parliament was illegal. September 21-25: Labour conference in Brighton September 29-October 2: Tory conference takes place in Manchester, with Mr Johnson giving his first keynote speech as leader on the final day. This will be a crucial waypointer on how Brexit talks are going. October 14: Unless it has already been recalled following the court battle, Parliament is due to return with the Queen's Speech - the day before Mr Johnson had hoped to hold a snap election. October 17-18: A crunch EU summit in Brussels, where Mr Johnson has vowed he will try to get a Brexit deal despite Remainers 'wrecking' his negotiating position. October 19: If there is no Brexit deal by this date Remainer legislation obliges the PM to beg the EU for an extension to avoid No Deal. October 21: Decisive votes on the Queen's Speech, which could pave the way for a confidence vote. October 31: The current deadline for the UK to leave the EU. November/December: An election looks inevitable, but Labour is hinting it might push the date back towards Christmas to humiliate the PM. Advertisement

'I urge the Prime Minister to immediately recall Parliament so we can debate this judgement and decide what happens next.'

He added: 'The Prime Minister was not telling the truth about why he was doing it. The idea of shutting down Parliament offended everyone across the country, and then they felt they were not being told the truth.'

Speaking at the TUC conference in Brighton, Mr McCluskey told Sky News: 'My advice to the prime minister is don't go up to Scotland - you're liable to face a citizen's arrest.'

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said Mr Johnson 'broke the law by closing down Parliament', and added: 'Did he also lie to the Queen? Time for Parliament to get back to work.'

But Brexiteers voiced fury at the ruling.

Tory former MP Stewart Jackson said: 'The reputation of Parliament is as low as it can get now.

'The Scottish Court decision merely reinforces the narrative that the Establishment couldn't care less about the voters and will do all it can to overturn the democratic will of the people. Carry on. Tick tock.'

The ruling is a fresh headache for Mr Johnson as he scrambles to find a way through the Brexit crisis.

There are growing signs he is ready to compromise on his Brexit demands after he admitted he faces a revolt from hardline Tory Eurosceptics.

The Prime Minister told Remainer rebels he is expecting 'spears in my back' from so-called 'Spartans' in his own party.

The remarks emerged amid claims Mr Johnson is softening his call for the Irish border backstop to be completely scrapped.

Instead aides are believed to be examining proposals for arrangements that would apply only to Northern Ireland, rather than aligning the whole UK with EU market rules.

That could raise tensions with the DUP, which has insisted it will not accept anything that risks splitting the union.

Mr Johnson previously stated that he was seeking a 'backstop-ectomy', to remove the controversial provision from the Withdrawal Agreement altogether.

However, the premier's options are looking increasingly limited, after Parliament passed a law effectively banning No Deal at the end of October, and refused his call to trigger an early general election.

Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer (pictured at the TUC conference in Brighton today) demanded Parliament be recalled 'immediately'

Who are the Scottish judges who just ruled suspending Parliament was unlawful? Three judges in Scotland's highest civil court have ruled that the PM's decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. The three judges are: Lord Carloway As Lord President of the Court of Session, Lord Carloway, 65, is Scotland's most senior judge. He took up the role four years ago, having previously been appointed Lord Justice Clerk – the second most senior position in the Scottish judiciary – on the recommendation of then First Minister Alex Salmond. As Colin Sutherland, he became a judge in 2000 and has presided over many high-profile cases – and in 2005 handed gas utility firm Transco a record £15million fine over an explosion which killed four members of a family in 1999. Eight years ago he published a major report on the integration of Scottish law with European human rights and EU law. In a speech in March 2017, he said Brexit was 'likely to be a very onerous task'. A graduate of Edinburgh University, he is married to a GP and has two sons. He is lead singer and bassist in the jazz band of the Faculty of Advocates called the Reclaimers. Lord Brodie Lord Brodie, 69, promotes strong relations between Scotland and France as head of the Franco-Scottish Society. He is the son of a senior Church of Scotland minister who took a law degree at Edinburgh University and became an advocate. His rise to Scotland's senior court took him through various advisory roles in Whitehall. He is married with three children, and lists interests including fencing and walking, and protecting the civic grandeur of the Scottish capital, where he lives. The Franco-Scottish Society says it exists to 'foster contacts between the French and the Scots and to develop their traditional friendship enshrined – since at least 1295 – in the Auld Alliance'. Historically the Auld Alliance was aimed against England. The last Scottish monarch to pursue it, before her execution by Elizabeth I, was Mary Queen of Scots, whose recently established statue in Linlithgow near Edinburgh was financed with the help of the Franco-Scottish Society. The Society, founded in 1895, describes its mission as to 'increase and disseminate in Scotland knowledge of France and the French way of life, with particular reference to its economic, social, political, historical and cultural institutions and developments'. Honorary presidents of the society, founded in 1985, include the French ambassador to Britain, Catherine Colonna, and Sir David Edward, a Scottish judge who also served as a judge of the Luxembourg-based EU Court of Justice. Lord Drummond Young Lord Drummond Young, 69, left, has been a judge of the Supreme Courts of Scotland since 2001. Married with a daughter, he studied law at Cambridge, Harvard and Edinburgh and, after serving as a legal adviser to several Whitehall departments, became a QC in England in 1998. Last September he sat alongside Lord Carloway to give a ruling in favour of Scottish politicians who wanted to give the judges of the EU Court of Justice a say over whether Article 50, Britain's formal declaration of Brexit, could be revoked. On Tuesday, he was one of three judges to cut the sentence of Aaron Campbell, who killed six-year-old schoolgirl Alesha MacPhail on the Isle of Bute last year. The ruling, due to the age of Campbell at the time, sparked fury, with the Scottish Conservative Party calling it 'disgraceful'. Advertisement