Parliament suspension is legal, Scots judge rules
Lord Doherty told the Court of Session that Boris Johnson's prorogation is lawful.
A Scots judge has ruled against a petition seeking to block Boris Johnson's five-week suspension of Parliament.
Lord Doherty said the planned prorogation of parliament is lawful following a hearing on the case on Tuesday at the Court of Session.
Speaking on Wednesday, the judge said Scotland's highest civil court would not interfere in a decision he said was ultimately "political territory".
A cross-party group of around 75 MPs and peers brought the legal action aimed at preventing the UK Government from suspending parliament ahead of the Brexit deadline of October 31.
Lord Doherty revealed his decision that the prorogation was lawful on Wednesday morning.
The Prime Minister's move to prorogue the Commons for five weeks was met by claims he was acting like a "tin pot dictator", including from critics such as First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
The claim the shutdown is intended to limit MPs' time to stop a no-deal Brexit and minimise their scrutiny of government plans.
Tuesday's hearing revealed internal Number 10 documents suggesting the PM had been planning to suspend Parliament since mid-August.
Announcing his decision, Lord Doherty said choosing when to prorogue Parliament was for politicians and not the courts - but this will now be appealed against.
He said: "In my view the advice given in relation to the prorogation decision is a matter involving high policy and political judgement.
"This is political territory and decision-making, which cannot be measured by legal standards but only by political judgments.
"Accountability for the advice is to Parliament and ultimately the electorate and not to the courts."
The judge added: "I do not accept the submission that the prorogation contravenes the rule of law and the claim is justiciable because of that.
"In my opinion there has been no contravention of the rule of law.
"The power to prorogue is a prerogative power and the Prime Minister had the vires (powers) to advise the sovereign as to its exercise."
SNP MP Joanna Cherry, one of the parliamentarians behind the challenge, tweeted: "Judge rules court can't review exercise of prerogative power to #prorogue.
"We thinks he's erred in law on this point & others & will seek to appeal immediately."
Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, which also supported the challenge, said: "The idea that if the PM suspends parliament the court can't get involved looses some ugly demons.
"If he can do it for 34 days why not 34 weeks or 34 months? Where does this political power end?
"Yesterday's hearing was always going to be a bit of a pre-season friendly.
"We're now focused on the Inner House, hopefully later this week, and then the Supreme Court on September 17."
The appeal will be heard at the Inner House in the Court of Session.
It comes as MPs defeated the Johnson government to seize control of Commons business on Tuesday night, with the aim of passing a law to delay Brexit and stop no-deal on Wednesday.
Analysis: 'Matter of law, not politics'
By special correspondent Bernard Ponsonby
So, in essence the judge rules that this is a matter of politics, not law and therefore in the legal jargon, the action is not justiciable.
A judgement to the contrary would have had significant constitutional implications.
If - and at the moment it is still a big if - a General Election takes place next month then the whole business of prorogation becomes less important since parliament will be dissolved to facilitate that election.