A DATE has been set for a court battle to stop Boris Johnson forcing through a no-deal Brexit by proroguing parliament.
More than 70 MPs and peers want Scotland's Court of Session to rule that suspending parliament to ensure the UK leaves the EU without a deal is "unlawful and unconstitutional".
During an preliminary hearing in Edinburgh, Lord Raymond Doherty agreed to an accelerated timetable, with a substantive hearing scheduled for September 6.
He said all documents in relation to the case must be lodged by Friday, August 30, while a procedural hearing has been pencilled in for September 4.
Expenses for both sides will be capped at £30,000, after the UK Government argued against efforts by the petitioners to limit their own expenses to £5,000.
READ MORE: 'How to win over a No voter: it’s the economy, stupid'
Andrew Webster QC, representing the government, said the politicians involved had a combined parliamentary salary of £5.5 million before tax, while a crowdfunding campaign had also raised more than £100,000.
He said: "It may be thought to be remarkable that a petitioner that has an income of £5.5 million, and a fighting fund of £100,000, could present themselves as in fincancial need of a protective expenses order."
The latest challenge is supported by the same legal team that secured a victory at the European Court of Justice last year over whether the UK could unilaterally cancel Brexit by revoking Article 50.
This includes Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, while the SNP's justice and home affairs spokeswoman Joanna Cherry is among those leading the drive.
They want the court to declare that the Prime Minister cannot advise the Queen to suspend parliament to stop it voting on a no-deal exit.
Mr Johnson has previously insisted the UK will leave the EU on October 31 "come what may", and has refused to rule out proroguing parliament.
David Welsh, the lawyer representing the cross-party group, insisted the issue was of "substantial importance" to the constitutional law of the UK.
And he argued there was "ample reason to suspect" the government will attempt to slow down and delay the proceedings as much as possible.
He said the case needed to be heard "swiftly" because any judgment that came after October 31 "would be rendered academic by the passing of time".
He added: "We are facing consequences of such extreme and severe nature that it's important for the court to fulfil its role in ruling on the law and how it should be applied."
However, Lord Doherty rejected the campaigners' attempts to have the whole hearing before one court to speed up the process.
READ MORE: UK 'first in line' for trade deal post Brexit, insists US security chief John Bolton
He said: "It's a case that requires expedition but there is a requirement for fairness to both sides."
Speaking afterwards, Ian Murray, Labour MP for Edinburgh South and one of those named in the petitition, said: “The courts are there to enhance our democracy by giving the public the ability to hold the government to account.
“It’s great progress to have a full hearing in September before the Prime Minister can consider closing down parliament to force through a no deal Brexit. Congratulations thus far to the legal team.”
The legal papers, submitted by the Good Law Project acting on behalf of the politicians, state: "Seeking to use the power to prorogue parliament to avoid further parliamentary participation in the withdrawal of the UK from the EU is both unlawful and unconstitutional."
Warning that "the exercise of the power of prorogation would have irreversible legal, constitutional and practical implications for the United Kingdom", the challenge calls for the court to declare that proroguing parliament before October 31 would be both unconstitutional and unlawful by denying MPs and the Lords the chance to debate and approve the decision.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel