legal challenge over Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament has been rejected in the High Court.
Gina Miller applied for a judicial review of the legality of proroguing Parliament and was joined by former prime minister John Major. Miller, who argued the move was “an unlawful abuse of power”.
Ms Miller, the businesswoman who successfully challenged the Government over the triggering of the Article 50 process to start the Brexit countdown, sought to challenge the legitimacy of Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen regarding the decision to prorogue.
Rejecting Ms Miller’s case, Lord Justice Burnett said she could immediately appeal because of the important points of law at stake.
The appeal is expected to be heard at the Supreme Court on 17 September.
Ms Miller said she was “very disappointed with the judgment”.
She added: “We feel it is absolutely vital that Parliament should be sitting. We are therefore pleased that the judges have given us permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which we will be doing, and they feel that our case has the merit to be handed up.”
Johnson announced on 28 August he wanted to shut down Parliament, a process known as proroguing, for five weeks ahead of a Queen’s Speech on 14 October.
His political opponents argued at the time that Mr Johnson’s aim was to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and to stop them passing legislation that would prevent the UK leaving the European Union without a deal on 31 October.
The UK government insisted this was not the case and said the aim of proroguing Parliament was to allow Mr Johnson to set out his legislative plans in the Queen’s Speech while still allowing sufficient time for MPs to debate Brexit.
Lord Doherty, the judge presiding, said the prime minister had not broken any laws by asking the Queen for a five-week suspension as it was for Parliament and the electorate to judge the prime minister’s actions – not the courts.
The group of more than 70 largely pro-Remain politicians, argues that Mr Johnson is exceeding his powers and attempting to undermine democracy by avoiding parliamentary scrutiny before the UK leaves the EU on 31 October.
After the ruling, a UK government spokesman said: “We welcome the court’s decision and hope that those seeking to use the judiciary to frustrate the government take note and withdraw their cases.”