UK Supreme Court unprorogues Parliament

That is something up with which all 11 judges would not put


British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was unlawful and therefore the House's prorogation was also illicit and should be recalled as soon as possible, said a judgment handed down at the Supreme Court this morning.

The surprising ruling [PDF] from the Supreme Court was the unanimous decision of all 11 judges, who heard the case last week.

Lady Hale, delivering the verdict, said the court was bound to conclude the advice given to Her Maj was improper and therefore the prorogation was unlawful, void and of no effect. In simple terms the suspension of Parliament never happened.

The decision to prorogue had a damaging effect on Parliament's ability to do its democratic duties at a crucial time in the UK's constitutional history, she said. Britain is due to leave the European Union on 31 October.

Lady Hale noted drily that she had been glad to hear from the government's counsel that the Prime Minister would take any necessary steps to follow the court's verdict. She said she did not believe the PM needed to do anything to recall Parliament and that it is down to the Speaker (the chair of the House of Commons) and Lords Speaker (who presides over the House of Lords chamber).

Commons Speaker John Bercow has already given a statement saying Parliament must reconvene "without delay" as opposition parties call for the PM's resignation.

Applicant Gina Miller welcomed the verdict and said MPs needed to get back to work and hold "this unscrupulous government to account".

What happens next in this never-ending shit show is anyone's guess but it is a severe kick in the danglies to PM Johnson.

There has been speculation that Johnson would attempt a second suspension which would likely quickly be quashed by the court again.

If you need a technology angle – the Supreme Court website had to have a little lie-down in the immediate wake of the verdict. And of course the entire country, and the tech industry within, is affected by this ruling. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022