unless for a "proper purpose"

it is unlawful to prorogue parliament. In this case, the Gov advanced no real evidence of its purpose, and insofar as it suggested one at all, said that it was in order to prepare the queen's speech - a useless argument which was squashed by Major's (contradicted) evidence. Given the unusual length of the prorogation and its particular context, the CT made it plain that justification (albeit possible in principle) would have to be convincing. In the event, the gov advanced virtually nothing (in evidence) in support of what it had done - thus my point that had it been more honest it might, ironically, have had better prospects of success.
Having said that - the Ct did not say that BJ lied to the queen or parliament or anyone else - it just said that it had not been given a good enough reason to justify the serious effects of prorogation in this case, and that the queen's speech prep was not such a reason (whether his actual reason or not). Equally, it's perfectly possible/legitimate to "disagree" with the result - for example, the Court of Appeal came to a different conclusion, and presumably therefore those judges would say that they "disagree". And it's perfectly possible to say (in BJ's shoes) that he acted on the AG's advice.

Posted By: paulg, Sep 25, 21:46:29