Good morning and welcome to day three of the live blog of the appeals concerning the lawfulness of the current prorogation of the UK Parliament.  Please refresh the UKSC Blog homepage throughout the day in order to get the latest updates. Today’s live blog team comprises Emma Boffey, Sarah Stodart, Rose Falconer, Amy Ramsay, Rachel Todd and Emma NcNally, all of CMS.

You can watch the live feed of today’s proceedings here and you can see yesterday’s UKSC Live Blog here and day 1’s coverage here.

1516: Lady Hale sums up that the Supreme Court is not ruling on how and when the UK leaves the EU but on whether the prorogation of Parliament was lawful. She confirms that the court hopes to give its decision early next week and adjourns proceedings.

1515: Lord Pannick QC ends his submissions.

1512: Lord Pannick QC sums up that if the court makes a declaration that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful then it would be for Parliament to reconvene and for them to decide what to do next. The matter should not have to come back before the court.

1511: Lord Pannick QC we have asked for an order that the advice given by the Prime Minister to her Majesty was unlawful.

1507: Lady Hale advises Lord Pannick QC to make the assumption that the court will make a decision as quickly as possible.

1500: Lord Pannick submits that if the Court makes the declaration as requested then Parliament would be reassembled as soon a possible next week, and it would be for Parliament to decide what action to take.

1449: Lord Pannick QC responds to Sir James Eadie QC’s submissions.  He notes the Executive cannot claim an unfettered power over Parliament.

1445: Lord Pannick QC invites the court to draw inference that the Prime Minister was motivated, or strongly influenced, to prorogue Parliament as he viewed Parliament as a threat to the implementation of his policies.

1444: Lord Pannick QC refers to previous points made, that a minister can be shown to have acted unlawfully based on the effect of that act.

1441: Lord Pannick QC says he is happy to follow Lord Keen QC’s comments and asks the court to read the documents fairly and with an open-mind.  He says one of the documents, by the Prime Minister, shows the Prime Minister’s failure to understand that Parliament, as the sovereign body, may wish to ask questions of the Executive.

1435: Lord Pannick QC begins his submissions.

1429: The second Note discusses the effect of Part 4 of the interlocutor issued by the Inner House. Lord Keen QC says to the panel that a declaration that the advice to the Sovereign was unlawful is all that is required.  It should then be up to Parliament and the Executive how to respond.  The Justices are engaged with this. Lord Hodge asks Lord Keen QC how Parliament is to respond if it is not there.  Lord Keen QC takes a few other questions from the panel.

1425: The first Note sets out the effect of the prorogation on legislation.  Lord Keen QC says that it is expected that there will be adequate time to deal with all necessary SIs and primary legislation before 31 October 2019.

1424: Lord Keen QC refers to two additional Notes that have been lodged with the court.

1421: Lord Keen QC notes that Parliament can exercise control through its ability to take the Government back to the country (through an election).

1417: Lord Keen QC urges the panel to do as Lord Reed suggested yesterday, to consider the whole of the documentation in a fair manner.  He adds that the Lord President commented that an affidavit is not required in these circumstances.

1414: Lord Keen QC moves on to discuss the decision of the Inner House.

1413: Lord Keen QC tells the court this is “forbidden territory” and is a matter between Parliament and the Executive.  He adds the courts are not properly equipped to deal with this political minefield.

1408: Lord Keen QC says that, in relation to prorogation, it is clear that political purposes may prevail and we have seen many instances of this over the years.

1404: Lord Keen QC says that the court is being invited to “control the length of the prorogation of Parliament as exercised under the prerogative” and that this is regulated by constitutional convention and not law.

1401: Lord Keen QC commences his submissions.

1401: The eleven Justices of the UK Supreme Court take their seats.

1232: The court adjourns for lunch.

1232: Lord Garnier QC refers to comments made by Sir James Eadie QC for the Prime Minister as to the risk of cross-examination being a reason the Prime Minister would not give evidence. Lord Garnier QC says the only reason the court would have agreed to cross-examination would be if it was satisfied that there was a prima facie case that the evidence was not true. Lord Garnier QC says that if the evidence was not credible, it would be odd that the PM could insulate himself from questioning about it.

1230: Lord Garnier QC says that it would be very difficult not to infer that any evidence given by the Prime Minister would be adverse to his case. He says there is recent evidence of the Downing Street press office being misleading in its announcements.

1228: Lady Hale tells Lord Garnier QC he is out of time. Agrees to indulge him for a further two minutes.

1225: Lord Garnier QC refers to a comment by Lord Carnwath that Parliament could have passed a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. He says this would not have addressed the vice of the prorogation. Parliament would have lost another 14 days, and it could have led to the dissolution of Parliament. It would have risked losing time, in circumstances in which time is already a limited resource.

1220: Lord Garnier QC turns to consider political motives and to counter Sir James Eadie QC’s submissions made on behalf of the Prime Minister.

1215: Lord Garnier QC says there is a “world of difference” between dissolution and prorogation. The power of dissolution involves an interference with Parliament, but the principle effect of that interference is to ensure that the basis of parliamentary sovereignty remains intact.  Dissolution refers power back to the people by giving them a chance to elect new representations, whereas after prorogation the same MPs reconvene.

1210: Lord Garnier QC refers to witness statement of Sir John Major KG CH as to the purpose of prorogation, why it is exercised and what considerations might impact on its use. Says the reasons put forward by the Prime Minister for the prorogation cannot be true. Says the inescapable inference to be drawn is to prevent Parliament from being able to disagree with the Prime Minister. Says they have made a direct allegation against the Prime Minister, who has failed to give a witness statement in response.

1206: Lord Garnier QC commences his submissions on behalf of Sir John Major KG CH.

1206: Michael Fordham QC concludes his submissions by saying this is justiciable in principle. “If not in this case, then the words justiciable in principle are… empty words.”

1204: Michael Fordham QC refers to written submissions by the Public Law Project regarding bills falling away. Notes that the Public Law Project will not be making oral submissions, but says these are important submissions.

1200: Michael Fordham QC says the closest case we have is Bobb & Anor v Manning (Trinidad & Tobago) [2006] UKPC 22 (25 April 2006).

11:55:  Michael Fordham QC submits it is accepted prerogative power has to be exercised in the public interest.

11:48: Michael Fordham QC queries whether there is some magic for prerogative powers. Uses the access to justice principle as an example –  not a statutory power but it is established, in the case of Guardian, that it is reviewable. Submits therefore that non-statutory powers are clearly reviewable.

11:44: Michael Fordham QC sets out the principles as to the reach of judicial review in areas might otherwise be considered out of its reach.

11:37: Michael Fordham QC refers the Court to Lord Reed’s judgment in the Unison case which recognises the constitutional right of an unimpeded access to the courts. Submits this is a principle or right – the common law right of the right of access to justice. Michael Fordham QC compares case of denying a passport, with known consequence that someone can’t get to the Court. In the Union case, the Court scrutinises carefully the impact – whether the principal or value has been breached by the action in question. Straightforward legal principles asking about justification, having analysed, objectively, the impact.

11:34: Michael Fordham QC starts his submissions on behalf of the Counsel General for Wales

11:34: Ronan Lavery QC closes his submissions.

11:31: Ronan Lavery QC returns to the fact that Parliament does have an obligation to protect NI’s interests and that is the essence of the submissions – this is not merely a political game.  It is about the power of the Government to stymy Parliament. The context is important.

11:29: Lord Kerr again questions the relevance of these submissions to this appeal. Ronan Lavery QC submits it gives context to the level of scrutiny required. Lord Wilson expresses concerns that these submissions are inappropriate. Requests Ronan Lavery QC not abuse Lady Hale’s politeness.

11:27: Ronan Lavery QC submits the Government’s policy would be constitutional. Section 10 demonstrates the goodwill of Parliament that Parliament can and will function to protect the interests of each part of the United Kingdom, even in the absence of meaningful representation in Westminster.

11:25: Ronan Lavery QC says absence of consideration of NI in these circumstances is gross.

11:21: Ronan Lavery QC submits section 10 of the EU Withdrawal Act designed to ensure there would not be an exit that erected a hard border. Government has statutory obligation to have due regard to the joint report in exercising it power. Parliament will not be able to exercise any of the controls.

11:16: Ronan Lavery QC refers to joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the UK government which he submits helps to outline what our unwritten constitution amounts to. Bench queries relevance of this point.  Kerr summarises the point that if Parliament is prorogued all the safeguards particularly important in NI will be lost. But goes on to query whether that point needs elaboration. Bench goes on to say that these points irrelevant to the legal question.

11:14: Ronan Lavery QC submits that important debates that need to take place have had the only forum where these can take place removed – this is the immediate impact.

11:10: Ronan Lavery QC takes the Court to a letter from current Secretary of State for NI to Lady Herman – references important appointments that couldn’t be made because Parliament was prorogued.

11:07: Ronan Lavery QC submits improper motive is a well established yard stick and one the Court is very well equipped to deal with.

11:05: Ronan Lavery QC urges the Court to look at this legal question “in a way that recognises the impact of the decision on Northern Ireland in particular” and of erection of a border.

Lady Hale: “we are solely concerned with the lawfulness or not of the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue”.. “we are not concerned with when, how and on what terms the United Kingdom leaves the European Union”

11:00: Ronan Lavery QC begins his submissions

1059: Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC now closes his submissions.

1058: Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC makes two short points from a purely Scots Law perspective. First, this case does not turn on a specific rule of Scots Law, the underlying Constitutional issues are the same. Second, regarding the SI programme, the UK Government has said they will only create instruments following the scrutiny of the Scottish Government.

1052: Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC submits that “extreme cases” test the concept of justiciability in the modern context.

1050: The Justices question Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC on the distinction between dissolution and prorogation.

1045: Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC turns to speak about the issue of justiciability. He states that it is perfectly orthodox to apply usual judicial review measures to the matters at hand.

1043: Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC submits that no substantive justification has been provided for the length of the prorogation under review. He points out that prorogation to pave the way for a Queen’s Speech is usually not for such a lengthy amount of time.

1037: Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC refers to case law regarding the court’s powers of judicial review and the approach that should be taken when applying principles of judicial review to constitutional issues.

1032: The eleven Justices of the UK Supreme Court take their seats.

0941: The interveners’ written cases are now available here on the UK Supreme Court website.

0933: We expect proceedings to start around 10.30am.

0916: Good morning from the UKSC Blog team covering the third and final day of the conjoined matters of (1) R (Miller) v Prime Minister; and (2) Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland before the UK Supreme Court.

Today sees the interveners deliver their oral submissions.  First up, we will hear from James Wolffe QC, the Lord Advocate.  The Lord Advocate is the senior Scottish law officer and is intervening on behalf of the Scottish Government in this matter.  Next, we will hear from Ronan Lavery QC, who appears on behalf of Raymond McCord, in an intervention from Northern Ireland. Thereafter, Michael Fordham QC will deliver his submissions on behalf of the Counsel General for Wales.  Finally, we will hear from Lord Garnier QC, intervening on behalf of the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major.  The shadow Attorney General, Baroness Chakrabati CBE, and the Public Law Project, have also intervened in this matter, but are expected to deliver written submissions only.

After the interveners have concluded their submissions, Lord Keen of Elie QC, the Advocate General for Scotland, will deliver a reply on behalf of the UK Government, followed by Lord Pannick QC delivering his reply on behalf of Gina Miller.  We expect the Justices will then update the public on when they expect to deliver their judgment in this important matter.

You can see written cases for each of the parties here.

Please refresh the UKSC Blog homepage throughout the day in order to get the latest posts.