Johnson misled Queen to shut Commons: Gina Miller's lawyer

IN a bid to force through Brexit on October 31, Boris Johnson has abused his power more than any other prime minister for over half a century, Gina Miller’s QC told the Supreme Court on Tuesday (17).

Opening the case, Gina Miller's barrister Lord Pannick QC said: “The exceptional length of the prorogation, in this case, is strong evidence that the prime minister's motive was to silence Parliament for that (five-week) period because he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the furtherance of his political aims.”

Lord Pannick added: “No prime minister has abused his power in the manner in which we allege in at least the last 50 years.”

He further noted that he was “making no criticism of Her Majesty in these proceedings - Her Majesty acted on the advice of her prime minister”.

Lord Pannick said the Queen had been misled by the government and the prime minister’s refusal to provide sufficient proof to the court should be held against him by the judges.

Indian origin Miller and her supporters will argue that Johnson is trying to prevent a scrutiny of his Brexit policy to move through ‘No Deal’.

During the next three days, the top court is scheduled to hear an appeal case launched by arch-remainers, including Miller.

Eleven most senior British judges are expected to rule whether prime minister broke the law and misled the Queen by shutting the Commons for over a month.

The court ruling may influence if Britain leaves the EU.

The Conservative leader may face a major setback, which may force him to resign as prime minister, if the top court decides he lied to Her Majesty about the reasons for suspending Parliament until October 14.

Johnson’s pledge to deliver Brexit by October 31 would also witness a major setback if the court rules against him.

Miller's written case highlighted: “The prime minister's advice to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a period of five weeks is an unlawful abuse of power, because there has been no prorogation for longer than three weeks in the past 40 years and prorogation is typically for a week or less.

“To prorogue Parliament for such a lengthy period removes the ability of Parliament to take such action as it sees fit... relating to the arrangements for the UK to leave the EU when time is very much of the essence…”

According to the group of people who moved court against Johnson, he lied to the Queen to suspend the Parliament because he sees MPs as an 'obstacle' to Brexit.

The top court is also expected to rule on an appeal by the government against Scottish justices who said shutting down Parliament until mid-October is illegal.

The court’s ruling on the case would be “without fear or favour” and “will not determine when and how the UK leaves the EU,” said Supreme Court President Lady Hale in an opening statement at the start of the case.