That was in the Scottish courts.
So now it has to go to the Supreme Court. I didn't know if it likely that Parliament will be recalled before that happens.
The Crown cannot act unlawfully, in the sense that when endorsing her government's actions those actions must be lawful:
"The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
So yes, a bit of a mess, but the Queen did not act wrongly - the first Scottish hearing upheld the prorogation, and the Supreme Court might yet do so again. It wasn't o obviously wrong that she should never have signed it off. For it is true that there is routinely a prorogation ahead of the Queen's speech, and it is also normal that a new Prome Minister would want to set out their government's programme and start business on that footing. It is also true that most of the time of the prorogation, Parliament would not be sitting anyhow (for Party Conferences, this happens every autumn). So it is a question of the Courts deciding if BJ has actually done something normal and minimised disruption to the House's planned sitting by putting it mainly in the conference recess, or if removing any days at all is so wrong it is unlawful.