ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

A decision is expected "early next week" on whether Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was lawful.

It came as the three-day Supreme Court hearing into the hugely controversial suspension concluded on Thursday.

Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, said in her closing remarks: "I must repeat that this case is not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

"The result of this case will not determine that. We are solely concerned with the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament on the dates in question.

"As we have heard, it is not a simple question and we will now carefully consider all the arguments that have been presented to us."

She went on: "We hope to be able to publish our decision early next week."

Discussing what, if any, solution the court could provide, Lady Hale said: "Well, we will have to decide what the answer is and we will have to decide one way or another what the consequences of that are."

Mr Johnson has been accused of proroguing Parliament until mid-October in order to prevent MPs putting a stop to a no-deal Brexit, with Mr Johnson insisting the UK will leave the EU on the October 31 deadline with or without a deal.

But the Prime Minister has insisted suspending Parliament was necessary in order to prepare a domestic legislative agenda.

The court is considering appeals arising from two separate challenges in England and Scotland - which produced different outcomes - over Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks until October 14.

The High Court rejected businesswoman Gina Miller's challenge, finding that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.

But in Scotland, a cross-party group of MPs and peers won a ruling from the Inner House of the Court of Session that Mr Johnson's prorogation decision was unlawful because it was "motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing Parliament".

Mrs Miller is now appealing against the decision of the High Court, asking the Supreme Court to find that the judges who heard her judicial review action "erred in law" in the findings they reached.

Her barrister, Lord Pannick QC, told the court on Tuesday that Mr Johnson's motive for an "exceptionally long" prorogation was to "silence" Parliament, and that his decision was an "unlawful abuse of power".

Sir James Eadie QC argued on the Prime Minister's behalf on Wednesday that the suggestion the prorogation was intended to "stymie" Parliament ahead of Brexit was "untenable".

But on Thursday, it was claimed MPs could be blocked for almost another month from challenging Brexit plans even if Boris Johnson loses the Supreme Court battle.

Ms Miller, meanwhile, left the Supreme Court to cheers and boos from the large crowd waiting outside the court building on Thursday afternoon.

A small group of pro-Brexit protesters shouted "shame on you" and "traitor" as she got into a waiting car.