Michael Holden and Estelle Shirbon

Boris Johnson’s Suspension of Parliament Unlawful: UK Supreme Court

Johnson had advised the Queen to prorogue the British Parliament from September 10 to October 14.

London: The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully when he advised Queen Elizabeth to suspend parliament weeks before Brexit – and that therefore the suspension was void.

The ruling paves the way for legislators to return to the parliament, where Johnson has no majority. It could give lawmakers, most of whom are opposed to leaving without the EU without a divorce agreement as he has threatened to do, further opportunity to impede his strategy.

“The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification,” Supreme Court President Brenda Hale said.

Also read: UK Parliament Suspension: What Does It Mean for Brexit and Why Are MPs So Angry?

“Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgement of all 11 justices,” she added. “It is for parliament, and in particular the speaker and the (House of) Lords speaker, to decide what to do next.”

Parliament was suspended, or prorogued in the British jargon, from September 10 to October 14. The prorogation was approved by Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s politically neutral head of state, on the advice of the Prime Minister.

“I welcome the Supreme Court’s judgement that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful,” said the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

“As the embodiment of our Parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay. To this end, I will now consult the party leaders as a matter of urgency.”

Some lawmakers, including those thrown out of Johnson’s Conservative Party for rebelling against his Brexit plans, had said he should resign if he was found to have misled the queen.

(Reuters)

Police Identify UK-Born Attacker, Victim Count Rises to Five

The attack was the deadliest in UK since 2005, when 52 people were killed by Islamist suicide bombers on London’s public transport system.

Police officers stand on Westminster Bridge the morning after an attack by a man driving a car and wielding a knife left five people dead and dozens injured, in London, UK, March 23, 2017. Credit: Reuters

London: The attacker who ploughed a car through a throng of pedestrians and then stabbed a policeman outside Britain’s parliament was named on Thursday as Khalid Masood, a British-born man who was once investigated by MI5 intelligence officers over concerns about violent extremism.

The death toll from Wednesday’s attack on the heart of UK’s democracy grew to five as police said one of the injured, a 75-year-man, had died in hospital after his life support was withdrawn.

That number included Masood, 52, who was shot dead by police.

The attack was the deadliest in UK since 2005, when 52 people were killed by Islamist suicide bombers on London’s public transport system.

An armed police officer stands on Whitehall the morning after an attack by a man driving a car and wielding a knife left five people dead and dozens injured, in London, UK, March 23, 2017. Credit: Reuters

It followed a series of Islamist militant operations that have killed some 280 people in France, Belgium and Germany in just over two years, and marked the third occasion a lone attacker has used a vehicle as a weapon.

ISIS claimed responsibility in a statement issued by its Amaq news agency, but did not name Masood and gave no details. It was not clear whether the attacker was directly connected to the jihadist group.

Police said Masood was born in the county of Kent in southeast England and was most recently living in the West Midlands region of central England.

“Masood was not the subject of any current investigations and there was no prior intelligence about his intent to mount a terrorist attack,” the metropolitan police said in a statement.

“However, he was known to police and has a range of previous convictions for assaults, including GBH (grievous bodily harm), possession of offensive weapons and public order offences.”

UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May makes a statement in Downing street in London, UK, March 22, 2017 following the attack in Westminster. Credit: Reuters

Prime Minister Theresa May told parliament the attacker had once been investigated by the MI5 intelligence agency over concerns about violent extremism, but had been a peripheral figure.

A US government source said Masood had associates with an interest in joining jihadist groups abroad, but there was no evidence he had done so himself.

“The people he was hanging out with did include people suspected of having an interest in travelling to join jihadi groups overseas but the attacker himself never did so,” the source said.

Police said Masood had never been convicted of a terrorist offence. His first conviction was in 1983 for criminal damage and his last one in December 2003 for possession of a knife.

Armed police responds outside Parliament during an incident on Westminster Bridge in London, UK March 22, 2017. Credit: Reuters

Mayhem

During five minutes of mayhem in the heart of London on Wednesday, Masood sped across Westminster Bridge in a car, mowing down pedestrians. He then ran through the gates of the nearby parliamentary precinct and fatally stabbed an unarmed policeman, Keith Palmer, before being shot dead.

“He will be deeply missed. We love him so much,” Palmer’s family said in a statement. The 48-year-old was married with a five-year-old daughter.

About 40 people were injured, of whom some were in critical condition. May visited some of them, her spokesman said.

Police arrested eight people at six locations in London and Birmingham in the investigation into the attack, which May said was inspired by a warped Islamist ideology. All were suspected of preparing terrorist acts, police later confirmed.

The Enterprise rental car company said the vehicle used had been rented from its Spring Hill branch in Birmingham, which is in the West Midlands.

The bloodshed took place on the first anniversary of attacks that killed 32 people in Brussels. A minute’s silence was held in parliament and outside police headquarters on Thursday morning.

People leave flowers at the scene after an attack on Westminster Bridge in London, UK, March 22, 2017. Credit: Reuters

As dusk fell, hundreds gathered in London’s Trafalgar Square in a vigil to remember the victims. With traffic diverted away, volunteers handed out candles in an eerie silence.

Helen Pallot, 26, from just outside London, was holding a bunch of flowers she planned to lay nearby.

“I have got a lot of friends and family that work five minutes away from there, so it just makes you think,” she said. “It made me angry and sad and I wanted to come here and show that we can still all be here together.”

Speaking at the UN in New York, British foreign secretary Boris Johnson urged internet providers and social media networks to do more to curb extremist propaganda.

“They’ve got to look at the stuff that’s going up on their sites, they’ve got to take steps to invigilate it, to take it down where they can,” he said.

An air ambulance lands in Parliament Square during an incident on Westminster Bridge in London, UK March 22, 2017. Credit: Reuters

“Lone-wolf attack”

The casualties included 12 Britons, three French children, two Romanians, four South Koreans, one German, one Pole, one Chinese, one American and two Greeks, May said.

Queen Elizabeth released a message saying: “My thoughts, prayers and deepest sympathy are with all those who have been affected by yesterday’s awful violence.”

US tourist Kurt Cochran was named as one of the dead in a Facebook post by family member Shantell Payne.

“With a heavy heart I must pass the sad news of our beautiful brother, father, husband, son and friend Kurt Cochran, he could not overcome the injuries he received in the London terror attacks,” Payne wrote.

Her post said Cochran’s wife, Melissa Payne Cochran, was in hospital with a broken leg and rib and a cut on her head.

The couple were in Europe to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary.

US President Donald Trump paid tribute to Cochran in a tweet, calling him “a great American”.

Many have been shocked that the attacker was able to cause such mayhem in the heart of the capital equipped with nothing more than a hired car and a knife.

“This kind of attack, this lone-wolf attack, using things from daily life, a vehicle, a knife, are much more difficult to forestall,” defence secretary Michael Fallon told the BBC.

Three French high-school students on a school trip to London were among the injured. French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault met some of their fellow students near the hospital where they were being treated. Their lives were not in danger.

(Reuters)

UK Government Seeks To Overturn Legal Ruling That Could Derail Brexit

Last month the High Court had ruled that Theresa May could not begin two years of Brexit talks with the remaining EU members without parliamentary backing.

Protesters wearing judges’ wigs and robes ride an open top bus past the Supreme Court ahead of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May’s government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London, Britain December 5, 2016. Credit:Reuters/Toby Melville

London: The British government launched a Supreme Court battle on Monday over who has the power to trigger the formal process of leaving the European Union, seeking to overturn a legal ruling that could derail its Brexit strategy.

With passions inflamed by the June vote to leave the EU, demonstrators gathered outside the court as it began hearing the government‘s appeal against a ruling that ministers needed parliament’s assent before triggering the complex process.

EU supporters in judges’ robes and wigs rode a double decker bus past the court, along with a van emblazoned with the slogan “The Brexiteers have failed us all”. Rival Brexit supporters waved placards saying “This is an establishment stitch-up”.

The High Court ruled last month that Prime Minister Theresa May could not trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of Brexit talks with the 27 remaining EU members without parliamentary backing.

If the Supreme Court upholds the earlier ruling, that could disrupt May’s planned timetable for invoking Article 50 by the end of March, and give lawmakers opportunities to water down the government‘s policies on what the terms of Brexit should be.

Launching the government‘s case, its top lawyer said the earlier legal ruling was wrong, arguing that parliament had accepted before the referendum that ministers would use executive “prerogative” powers to implement its result.

“The triggering of Article 50, we say, will not be an exercise of prerogative power on a whim or out of a clear blue sky,” said Attorney General Jeremy Wright.

“It is a logical conclusion of a process in which parliament has been fully and consciously involved.”

Wright said prerogative authority, a historical power where the government acts on behalf of the monarch, was not an “ancient relic but a contemporary necessity”.

The hearing is due to last for four days and for the first time in the Supreme Court’s seven-year history all 11 justices are sitting. The verdict is expected in January.

Outside the court, a grand neo-Gothic building located on the same central London square as the Houses of Parliament, police kept an eye on rival demonstrators while inside, government lawyer James Eadie came under close questioning from the judges.

Law not politics

Some politicians and newspapers have portrayed the legal battle as an attempt by establishment judges to thwart the popular will. Voters opted to leave the EU by 52 to 48% in June’s referendum.

The Daily Mail newspaper, which called the High Court judges “enemies of the people” after last month’s ruling, has kept up its assault on the judiciary, saying many of the Supreme Court justices had links to the EU or had expressed pro-EU views.

“We are aware of the strong feelings associated with the many wider political questions surrounding the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union,” Supreme Court President David Neuberger said in opening remarks. “However, those wider political questions are not the subject of this appeal.”

“This appeal is concerned with legal issues and, as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case according to the law. This is what we shall do.”

Some lawmakers in May’s Conservative Party had called for Neuberger himself to withdraw because his wife had previously posted anti-Brexit messages on Twitter. He said all parties in the case had been asked if they wanted any of the judges to stand down and no objections had been raised.

The case was originally brought by investment fund manager Gina Miller along with hairdresser Deir Tozetti Dos Santos.

Their lawyers successfully argued at the High Court that Britons would inevitably lose rights granted by parliament when leaving the EU, and that under Britain’s unwritten constitution such rights could only be taken away with lawmakers’ approval.

If the government wins at the Supreme Court, May can invoke Article 50 by the end of March as planned. But if she loses, as many legal experts have predicted, parliament could delay or put conditions on the process, and in theory, even block it.

Investors believe that greater parliamentary involvement would reduce the chances of a “hard Brexit” in which tight controls on immigration are prioritised over European single market access. The pound surged after November’s High Court ruling.

Such is the level of vitriol in the public debate over Brexit that Miller has become a target of hate and has received abuse and death threats.

“Threatening and abusing people because they are exercising their fundamental right to go to court undermines the rule of law,” said Neuberger.

(Reuters)