Further to the decision of the Supreme Court on 24 September, John Gould, Senior Partner and author of "The Law of Legal Services" said:
"The Supreme Court's decision represents further confirmation that Parliament, not the monarchy or government ministers, is the foundation of our law and constitution. The first Gina Miller decision, that only Parliament could authorise the giving of notice to leave the EU, limited the power of the Government to use the historic residue of royal power to make decisions which cut across legislation.
"This is not an interference by the courts with political decisions; it is confirmation that this is a political decision for Parliament, not the Executive. The law requires Parliament to be able to make law and hold the Government accountable. This means that the power to prorogue cannot be unlimited and it is for the courts to decide where the limits lie. Parliament may be prorogued for a short time with a minor effect on its ability to legislate, but the sovereignty of Parliament and the principle of the Government's accountability to Parliament would be undermined if the Executive could send it away for as long a period as it wished. The longer Parliament stands prorogued the greater the risk that responsible government may be replaced by unaccountable government which is the antithesis of our democratic model. The court decided that it was impossible to conclude that there was any reason, let alone a good reason, to prorogue Parliament for as long as it did. The court did not speculate on what the true reasons may have been but implicitly found that the Prime Minister was acting simply as the leader of a government promoting his own policies rather than discharging the constitutional responsibilities of his office."
"This is a powerful judgment unanimously agreed by all eleven judges. The court has confirmed (as it has for centuries) that Parliament is supreme. Governments are accountable to Parliament. If Parliament is to be prorogued for any period that affects its ability to discharge its constitutional role, it must be for a good reason. No good reason for such a period of prorogation had even been suggested by the Government. Preparation of a Queen's speech could not be the reason for such a long prorogation. The court has found that the Prime Minister has put the promotion of his policies above his constitutional responsibilities; his advice and the prorogation are unlawful. It is as if the official walking into Parliament bearing the order of prorogation was showing a blank piece of paper".