Anti-Boris Johnson Challenges Set Up Confusing Scramble in U.K. Courts

(Bloomberg) -- With time running out before U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s planned suspension of Parliament begins, the coming weeks promise a confusing scramble as courts in three cities deliberate whether the controversial move is legal.

And whatever happens at a series of court hearings, there will be a frantic rush to get the Supreme Court to weigh in before Johnson’s Sept. 12 deadline to send lawmakers packing.

“Almost certainly they will end up in the Supreme Court,” said Murray Hunt, the director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and a legal adviser to Parliament. “Even on the most expedited timetable it’s going to be a squeeze. It’s extremely difficult to predict the outcome.”

The court challenges were filed amid a wave of outrage at Johnson’s decision to prorogue, as the suspension is known in parliamentary jargon, from Sept. 12 until the Queen’s Speech on Oct. 14. Lawmakers from all parties are also trying to form an alliance to pass a law that could prevent a no-deal Brexit at the end of October.

On Friday, a judge in Edinburgh denied an emergency injunction against the prime minister’s plan brought by 70 lawmakers, saying there’s enough time to hear the case before the suspension starts. A full hearing will be held on Sept. 3. Over in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a judge also deferred hearings until next week after deciding against an urgent injunction.

The third case, brought by businesswoman Gina Miller, will be heard in London Sept. 5. Both Miller and the lawmakers in the Scottish case argue that, while the prime minister is entitled to suspend Parliament, limiting debate for so long before a crucial deadline is an abuse of power. Former Prime Minister John Major has joined her case.

Whether the courts can derail Johnson’s efforts to outflank his opponents remains unclear. Retired Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption this week described them as “a very, very long shot,” because the matter is political rather than legal.

Either way, it drags the judges into the political storm, exposing them to the vitriol that currently characterizes British politics. During Miller’s first Brexit-related case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers had to approve the start of formal proceedings to leave the European Union, a front-page headline in the Daily Mail newspaper described judges as “Enemies of the People.”

“Judges don’t welcome being caught in the middle of political crossfire,” senior trial attorney Richard Clayton, who is experienced in bringing Supreme Court cases, said in a phone interview. “Last time they were vilified.”

Regardless of the outcome, the cases are likely to end up in the Supreme Court, where they could be heard together. To do so before the suspension starts on Sept. 12, the panel would have to interrupt its summer break.

“The cases are pretty difficult, but I don’t think they’re impossible,” Clayton said, adding that if the cases aren’t decided by the time the suspension is due to start, the courts will likely say it needs to be delayed. “The government appears to be naïve about this if they haven’t factored in a timetable for the law.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Franz Wild in London at fwild@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Anthony Aarons at aaarons@bloomberg.net, Thomas Penny

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.