Major compares Johnson to a shonky real estate agent

Boris Johnson lashed as the ‘father of lies’ in the Supreme Court over his suspension of parliament.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s partner Carrie Symonds with her dog, Dilyn, at an armed services military reception at 10 Downing Street on Thursday. Picture: Getty Images

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been lashed as the “father of lies” in the Supreme Court over his five-week suspension of parliament.

And former prime minister John Major compared his fellow Tory to a dishonest real estate agent, saying that Mr Johnson had “ulterior motives” when he prorogued parliament.

Sir John, whose lawyers were due to intervene overnight at the Supreme Court, has said in written submissions that Mr Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament was “unlawful”.

The former prime minister has cited a previous legal case in which a real estate agent was found to be in “breach of fiduciary duty” after claiming that the buyer of a home wanted to live in it, when in fact they wanted to sell it on for profit.

In submissions drawn up by his lawyers, Sir John has said: “It could hardly be suggested that the duties of the prime minister to the monarch are less than those of an estate agent to a homeowner. Accordingly, if the court is satisfied that the Prime Minister’s decision was materially influenced by something other than the stated justification, that decision must be unlawful.”

On the second day of a three-day hearing into the legality of Mr Johnson’s prorogation, Aiden O’Neill QC, speaking for the 79 MPs who brought the case, told the court: “What we have with prorogation is the mother of parliaments closed down by the ­father of lies.’’

In a feisty speech amid references to the Battle of Banockburn of seven centuries ago, Kipling, Macbeth and the court of King James I, Mr O’Neill added: “Lies that have consequences, but the truth will set us free.”

Boris Johnson has been branded the ‘father of lies’ in the Supreme Court. Picture: AP.

The Supreme Court is hearing appeals on two contradictory rulings from the English and Scottish courts on the prorogation.

Some of the judges on Wednesday questioned why Mr Johnson had not given evidence supporting his decision to suspend parliament. Lord Nicholas Wilson asked: “Isn’t it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement to say, ‘This is true, these are the true reasons for what was done’?”

But Mr Johnson’s lawyer, James Eadie QC, said the documentation that has been submitted showed why Mr Johnson prorogued parliament and added he had never been involved in a judicial review where the minister involved gave a witness statement or was cross examined.

Sir James said if such a request had been made he would have “resisted it with fury’’.

Instead an internal memo submitted to the court showed correspondence between Nikki da Costa, director of legislative ­affairs, and Mr Johnson, in which the Prime Minister backed the plan for a long prorogation, writing: “1. The whole September session is a rigmarole introduced by girly swot (ex-prime minister David) Cameron to show the public that MPs were earning their crust. 2. So I don’t see anything ­especially shocking about this prorogation. 3. As Nikki notes, it is over the conference season so that the sitting days lost are actually very few.’’

The judges were told it was not the court’s territory to enter in regards to the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament.

Sir James said parliament had considered Brexit for years.

“Even if the prorogation in the present case was designed to ­advance the government’s political agenda regarding withdrawal from the European Union rather than preparations for the Queen’s Speech, that is not territory in which a court can enter,’’ he said.

But Mr O’Neill, representing Scottish nationalist MPs who won last week’s case in Scotland’s High Court, said Mr Johnson’s actions prevented and impeded parliament from holding the government to account when decisions would have constitutional and irreversible impacts.

He said Mr Johnson’s advice to the Queen was unlawful because it was motivated by an improper purpose to stymie parliament. “That fundamentally alters the balance of our constitution because it is using the power to allow the executive to govern … at this crucial time and all without the proper constitutional accountability,’’ he said.

A decision is expected to be handed down early next week.