Prorogation Is Unlawful: James O'Brien Finds Out What Happens Next

11 September 2019, 11:04 | Updated: 11 September 2019, 11:07

After a Scottish court ruled that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful, James O'Brien spoke to one of the lawyers behind the legal challenge to find out exactly what it means... and what happens next.

Jolyon Maugham was one of the petitioners for the legal challenge with Joanna Cherry QC and spoke to James about the decision by Scottish judges.

He told James that they believe this means the prorogation is void, but as we're in uncharted territory, he is is unsure who's decision it is to recall parliament.

He said that Tuesday's decision at the Supreme Court will ultimately decide what happens next.

Asked what happens following the verdict, he said: "Our understanding is that parliament is now no longer suspended, not prorogued any longer and can continue with its critically important business of holding this abysmal government to account.

"I imagine that the Speaker is taking a view at this exact moment about what it means."

When James asked who was in charge of the decision to now recall parliament, Jolyon admitted: "I don't know. This isn't just uncharted waters, we're in there-be-dragons territory. Nobody has any idea of what happens now. There has never been any precedent."

James O'Brien spoke to Jolyon Maugham to find out what happens next
James O'Brien spoke to Jolyon Maugham to find out what happens next. Picture: PA / LBC

He said the court case is not just about Brexit, but about parliamentary democracy itself.

"If the government was right, then parliament would be able to be suspended at the whim of any Prime Minister for as long as that Prime Minister wanted and there would be nothing that anyone could do about it.

"Parliament doesn't get a vote on whether it gets suspended. The government said that courts can't have a say on whether parliament is suspended and we would no longer live in any meaningful sense in a parliamentary democracy.

"This is a vital moment in the constitutional history of the United Kingdom."