PRIME minister Boris Johnson broke the law when he asked the Queen to prorogue Parliament, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The prime minister advised the Queen on Wednesday, August 28, to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, and it was suspended on Monday, September 9, until Monday, October 14.

But today the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Mr Johnson's advice was unlawful.The prime minister, who is currently at a global summit in New York, has said he "strongly disagrees" with the ruling, but will "respect" the decision.

Mr Johnson had said the five-week suspension would allow the government to set out a new legislative agenda in a Queen's Speech when MPs return to Parliament. But those who brought legal challenges argue the prorogation is designed to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of the UK's impending exit from the EU on October 31.

MORE NEWS:

Announcing the judgement, the court’s president Lady Hale said the prime minister’s advice to the Queen “was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions."

She said, therefore, the prorogation was "void and of no effect", adding: "Parliament has not been prorogued."

Continuing, she added: "It is for Parliament, and particularly the speaker and the lord speaker to decide what to do next.

"Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible.

"It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court."

Speaking in New York after the ruling was announced, the prime minister said: "Obviously this is a verdict that we will respect and we respect the judicial process.

"I have to say that I strongly disagree with what the justices have found. I don't think that it's right but we will go ahead and of course Parliament will come back."

Speaker John Bercow has confirmed Parliament will return tomorrow, Wednesday, although there will be no Prime Minister's Questions.

Reacting to the announcement on Twitter, first minister Mark Drakeford said it was "a huge victory for the rule of law".

"Any normal prime minister would – as a matter of honour – tender their resignation after such a unanimous verdict from the UK’s highest court," he said. "It is the final straw in a pitiful episode for the country."

And Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for the prime minister to "consider his position".

In a statement, speaker John Bercow said: "I welcome the Supreme Court's judgement that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful.

"The judges have rejected the government's claim that closing down Parliament for five weeks was merely standard practice to allow for a new Queen's Speech.

"In reaching their conclusion, they have vindicated the right and duty of Parliament to meet at this crucial time to scrutinise the executive and hold Ministers to account.

"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."

And the House of Commons said in a statement: "The House service's primary responsibility is to ensure the smooth running of parliamentary business.

"We are considering the implications of the Supreme Court's judgment for Parliament and will provide further information as soon as we can."

MORE NEWS:

The Supreme Court heard appeals over three days arising out of separate legal challenges in England and Scotland, in which leading judges reached different conclusions.

At the High Court in London, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and two other judges rejected campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller's challenge, finding that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.

But in Scotland, a cross-party group of MPs and peers led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC won a ruling from the Inner House of the Court of Session that Mr Johnson's prorogation decision was unlawful because it was "motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing Parliament".

Mrs Miller has appealed against the decision of the High Court, asking the Supreme Court to find that the judges who heard her judicial review action "erred in law" in the findings they reached.

The justices have been asked to determine whether Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen was "justiciable" - capable of challenge in the courts - and, if so, whether it was lawful.

During last week's hearing, Lord Pannick QC, for Mrs Miller, told the packed court that Mr Johnson's motive for a five-week suspension was to "silence" Parliament, and that his decision was an "unlawful abuse of power".

He argued that Mr Johnson's reasons for advising on a suspension of that length "were improper in that they were infected with factors inconsistent with the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty".

But Sir James Eadie QC argued on the prime minister's behalf that the suggestion the prorogation was intended to "stymie" Parliament ahead of Brexit was "untenable".

The justices have also been asked by the Westminster Government to allow an appeal against the decision in Scotland.

Asked shortly after the hearing ended last week to rule out proroguing Parliament for a second time, Mr Johnson said: "I have the greatest respect for the judiciary in this country.

"The best thing I can say at the moment whilst their deliberations are continuing is that obviously I agree very much with the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice and others who found in our favour the other day."

He added: "I will wait to see what transpires."

At the close of the hearing on Thursday, Lady Hale said: "I must repeat that this case is not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

"The result of this case will not determine that.

"We are solely concerned with the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament on the dates in question."