• MySTV

Parliament shutdown 'approved two weeks before made public'

Court of Session documents suggest Boris Johnson did not think the move would be 'shocking'.

Boris Johnson: Government notes from mid-August revealed in court.
Boris Johnson: Government notes from mid-August revealed in court. Getty Images

Boris Johnson was considering the suspension of Parliament two weeks before it was made public, court documents suggest.

In a note dated August 15, Number 10's former legislative affairs director Nikki da Costa asked whether an approach to prorogue Parliament should be made.

A note of "yes" was written on the document, with a handwritten note by the Prime Minister the next day calling the September session of Parliament a "rigmarole".

The details emerged at a hearing in the Court of Session to consider whether a judge should halt Johnson's move to shut down Parliament.

Lord Doherty last week refused a request to grant an interim ruling on the case, but moved the full hearing on it forward to Tuesday from Friday.

The action has been backed by around 75 cross-party MPs and peers, including SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson.

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1440457-ponsonby-coup-clever-politics-or-rewriting-the-constitution/ | default

The notes presented to court also revealed Johnson believed it should not be "shocking" to suspend Parliament, as he suggested MPs only wanted to come back in September to show they were "earning their crust".

Aidan O'Neill QC, representing the parliamentarians, described the Prime Minister as having a record that was "characterised by incontinent mendacity, an unwillingness or inability to speak the truth".

He pointed to the documents as showing the suspension of Parliament policy was being considered much earlier than announced and argued the court had been misled.

Mr O'Neill said: "This court was told nothing of that and was told in fact that this judicial review is academic, hypothetical and premature.

"That is not true. This court and these petitioners were being actively misled."

He argued the real reason to suspend Parliament was to allow a no-deal Brexit to take place by removing proper scrutiny.

Mr O'Neill said decisions in two separate Brexit-related court cases, brought by activist Gina Miller and Andy Wightman MSP, show Parliament should decide whether or not the UK leaves without a deal.

He claimed it was not lawful to create circumstances where that happens without such approval.

David Johnston QC, representing the Government, said the arguments were "academic" as it was for the Queen, not for the courts, to decide if Parliament can be prorogued

The Queen met the Privy Council on August 28 to approve prorogation, which First Minister Nicola Sturgeon branded "a dark day for democracy".

A full interdict by the Scots judge would immediately lift the royal order to suspend Parliament, although the UK Government has said it would be certain to appeal it.

The ruling is expected on Wednesday.

Analysis: 'Lord Doherty has an unenviable question to answer'

By special correspondent Bernard Ponsonby

Submissions to courts are normally the stuff of ponderous and formal language delivered with a politeness which can leave the observer wondering why on earth the parties are at war in the first place?

Step forward Aiden O'Neill QC. His characterisation of the Prime Minister would invite a writ for defamation if uttered elsewhere. Boris Johnson has a record characterised by "incontinent mendacity" and he was unwilling or unable to "speak the truth".

Just in case Lord Doherty missed the point, the government was characterised as "autocratic" using "one-man rule".

Why so personal? Why so political when this case will ultimately turn on law, albeit greatly influenced by politics?

Put simply what Mr O'Neill is trying to do is to torpedo the government's assertion that they are not dodging parliamentary scrutiny of a no deal Brexit and that the Queen assenting to the suspension of parliament was just the use of a well established protocol of behaviour.

The charge is that prorogation and prerogative powers were being abused because the government's motives were to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

Lord Doherty has an unenviable question to answer. Even if a government's motives are not as they state in seeking to suspend parliament, does that give the court the authority to determine that the suspension should be set aside?

And a further point. How is it possible to determine that the government's motives are not as they state without hearing from those who sought the suspension?

Perhaps some clarity when the UK Government's position is put to the court. Then again, this is Brexit related, perhaps not.

Download: The STV News app is Scotland's favourite and is available for iPhone from the App store and for Android from Google Play. Download it today and continue to enjoy STV News wherever you are.

One account. All of STV.

This field is required. That doesn't look like a valid e-mail format, please check. That e-mail's already in our system. Please try again.
Forgot password?
This field is required. This must be at least 6 characters long. Did you enter your details correctly?
If you've forgotten your details then use the 'Forgot password?' link.
Need to reset your password?

We'll send a link to reset your password to

We've sent you details on how to reset your password

Please check your email and follow the instructions.

Forgotten your email address?

Have you forgotten the email address that you previously joined with? Don't worry, by emailing enquiries@stv.tv we can help.

One account. All of STV.

This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
This must be at least 6 characters long.
This field is required. This must be at least 6 characters long.
You must be over 16 to join STV.
This field is required. This doesn't appear to be a valid date
We need this to check that you live in an STV region.
This field is required. This doesn't appear to be a valid postcode
Would you like us to email you about our great shows and services from time to time?
We'll only send emails we think you'll like (see example) based on information you have supplied and shows you have watched on STV Player. For details on emails and advertising, see our STV & You page.
Would you like to receive emails from the Scottish Children's Lottery about draws, instant games and competitions?
We support the Scottish Children's Lottery (SCL), which is managed by our colleagues at STV ELM Ltd. You can find out more about the SCL on its website, including its Privacy Policy.

By continuing you agree to our Terms of Use, and understand our Privacy and Cookie Policies.

Upload Profile Picture

Please make sure your image is under 2mb in size and a valid JPG, PNG or GIF.

Are you sure?

Unfortunately, you'll be unable to access our premium content. We’ll be sorry to see you go, but if you change your mind you can rejoin us at any time.

Please verify your STV account

Please verify your STV account using the email we sent you. If you have lost the email, we can send you another one, just click the button below.


We've sent you a new verification email.
Please check your email and follow the instructions to verify your account.

Welcome to STV
Thanks for joining us.


Sorry, you must be at least 12 years old to place a vote for your Real Hero.

Please review our Voting Terms of Use for more information.


Sorry! It seems that you are using a browser that is incompatible with our voting service.

To register your vote please copy the below URL in to your regular mobile browser. We recommend Google Chrome, or Safari.



Sorry, you seem to have already voted in this category.

Thanks for voting

Now share your vote with friends on your social network

Share on twitter Share on facebook

Cast your vote

Please register or sign in to continue.

Cast your vote

This field is required. This doesn't appear to be a valid date

Cast your vote

Please fill out this form to cast your vote. As you are under 16 years old you will not create an STV account. Why do we need these details?

This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
This field is required. That doesn't look like a valid e-mail format, please check.
Location This field is required.
Parental Consent This field is required.

That's you. All that's left is to click the 'Submit Vote' button below. By doing so, you confirm that you and your parent or guardian have read and accept our Voting Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Cookie policy, and that the details you have entered are correct. We'll look after them as carefully as if they were our own.