Boris Johnson 'approved' suspending parliament weeks before announcement

Prime Minister Boris Johnson appears to have been planning to suspend parliament nearly two weeks before making the announcement publicly, the Court of Session has heard. 

Documents seen by the court included a note sent to the prime minister on 15 August asking if he wanted to prorogue parliament from mid-September, signed off with the word ‘yes’ and a tick. 

Additionally, an email sent on 16 August showed Johnson describing the September parliamentary session as “a rigmarole introduced to show the public that MPs were earning their crusts” and that he did not see “anything especially shocking about (the) proposition” to suspend.

It was not until 28 August that the UK Government announced it intended to suspend parliament between 9 September and 14 October, with ministers arguing the move was necessary in order to hold the Queen’s Speech. 

The evidence was seen in Edinburgh’s Court of Session on Tuesday, as part of an ongoing case against the UK Government, brought by a cross-party group of 75 MPs. 

The MPs are in the process of challenging the legality of the government’s decision to suspend parliament in the run up to the Brexit deadline. 

The documents were revealed for the first time in court, after the lawyers representing the opposition MPs received them from the government’s defence team late on Monday night. 

Lawyer Aidan O’Neill QC, who is representing the MPs, argued the documents showed the government’s lawyers were wrong to claim before the announcement on 28 August that the court case was “academic, hypothetical and premature”.

O’Neill told the court: “That is not true. This court and these petitioners were being actively misled.”

He said the decision to send in the documents without a signed affidavit showed “an attempt to produce evidence to this court which has not met the test of being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

He at one point described Johnson’s political career as being one marked by “incontinent mendacity”.

David Johnston QC, who is representing the UK Government, admitted the evidence that was submitted late on Monday night had breached the court’s deadlines for submission. 

Johnston argued the decision to prorogue parliament was a political matter, not a legal one. As such, he said it was not for the court to make a decision on such matters.

Scotland’s highest ranking lawyer, the Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, was also granted permission to intervene in the court case in writing. 

Wolffe is expected to argue that the suspension of parliament is an abuse of power by the government that deprives MPs time to properly scrutinise Brexit plans before 31 October.

Judge Lord Doherty, who heard the arguments, said he would consider the case overnight and attempt to reach a decision on Wednesday. 

Lord Doherty’s decision could be appealed by either side and it is possible that the case could be brought before the UK Supreme Court. 

Jo Maugham QC, who is backing the MPs case through the Good Law Project, said: “Even the cherry-picked, unsworn evidence that the government has sent to us - even that discloses that Boris Johnson saw parliament as mere rigmarole, a circus for public consumption.

“This is all going to move very quickly from here in. It wouldn’t surprise me if we had a Supreme Court hearing as early as this week. 

“I expect the courts to refuse to allow parliament to be treated as an inconvenience by an unelected prime minister.”