Downing Street claims Scottish Cherry Case judges biased
DOWNING Street has gone on the attack after a humiliating judgement in Scotland's Court of Session ruled that Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful.
In remarks that have sparked outrage across the country, sources in No 10 claimed that the Scottish judges were politically biased against them.
Someone from Downing Street told the Sun journalist Tom Newton Dunn that the Scottish courts were never going to give the Tory government a fair hearing.
The source said: "We note that last week the High Court in London did not rule that prorogation was unlawful. The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason.
Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “This is pitiful, pathetic and desperate from No10.”
Theresa May’s former chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, urged caution. He tweeted: “This is a very unwise road for a party that believes in a) the Union and b) the rule of law to go down”.
Tory MSP, and constitutional law professor, Adam Tomkins agreed: "To politicians who don’t like court judgments: don’t attack the judges or the independence of the legal system. Don’t ever do that.
"Appeal, test your legal arguments in a superior court. Why does this even need saying?"
The party's acting leader in Scotland, Jackson Carlaw tweeted: "Let’s be very clear & I don’t much care where the sources are from who might suggest otherwise - we have absolute confidence in the independence and integrity of the Scottish judiciary."
And the UK Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland slapped down the unidentified Downing Street source. He tweeted: "Our judges are renowned around the world for their excellence and impartiality and I have total confidence in their independence in every case."
It's understood that the 75 MPs and Peers who first took the case to the Court of Session last month did so because England's high court doesn't sit in August.
In their sensational decision the three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, said the Tories were trying to stymie Parliament by proroguing the Commons in the run up to the Brexit deadline.
They also suggested the Prime Minister had misled the Queen.
The judgement of the Court of Session overturns last week’s ruling that progration was a purely political process.
Lawyers acting for 75 opposition MP and peers, led by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, had argued that Johnson’s five week prorogation of Parliament in the run up to the Brexit deadline was designed to stifle parliamentary debate and was therefore in breach of the constitution.
The Court of Session agreed.