Boris Johnson refuses to rule out second suspension of parliament

Johnson won’t rule out second prorogation, warns Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over decision.

Anti-Brexit protesters demonstrate outside The Supreme Court in London. Picture: AP.

Boris Johnson has refused to rule out a second prorogation of parliament and warned the Supreme Court that judges have no jurisdiction over his decision to suspend parliament.

On the first of a three day constitutional legal battle, Mr Johnson argued he was entitled to prorogue parliament even if it was for political reasons.

The government’s legal counsel, the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Richard Keen, was questioned by the 11 Supreme Court judges about Mr Johnson’s future plans, but he would not comment on whether Mr Johnson might subsequently try to prorogue parliament again.

In conflicting legal results in recent weeks the English High Court has ruled that Mr Johnson’s proroguing,of parliament was legal, but the Scottish high court last week found that it wasn’t and that Mr Johnson had misled the Queen, who gave her authority for the action.

The Supreme Court will now decide if the laws can stop a prime minister from proroguing parliament.

If the Supreme Court rules against Mr Johnson, he will face calls to resign and his plans to take the country out of the EU by October 31 will be in tatters.

In a written submission with Lord Keen, Mr Johnson said it would be “constitutionally inappropriate” for the courts to intervene.

Lord Keen said the Scottish court’s declaration last week that the prorogation was null and of no effect was a step too far. “They have simply gone where the court could not go.” he said.

However, he said if the ruling was upheld, the prime minister would take all necessary steps to comply and would ask the Queen to recall parliament.

Lord Keen said prorogations of parliament had been used before when governments wanted to “pursue a particular political objective” and his belief was that they are entitled to do so.

He explained that parliament had adequate mechanisms to deal with or stop prorogation , including having a vote of no confidence or by implementing a bill.

He gave an example of how the bill that blocked a no deal Brexit was passed in two days.

David Pannick QC, representing pro-remainer Gina Miller, the woman who won a case two years ago that ruled parliament had to approve Brexit, said the proroguing of parliament was to avoid MPs frustrating or damaging Mr Johnson’s Brexit plans. He said there was strong evidence MPs were seen as an obstacle and the prime minister wanted to “silence” them.

Lord Pannick argued that the parliament should be able to hold the prime minister to account and demanded a witness statement from Mr Johnson setting out his reasons for closing parliament.

Mr Johnson has previously said he suspended parliament to finish a session and to allow him to table a fresh legislative program after the annual political party conferences. He suspended the parliament for five weeks until October 14.

The court will sit for another two days and another Remainer and former Tory prime minister Sir John Major is due to argue that Mr Johnson has acted illegally.