For legal junkies,
from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_Kingdom
The procedure has, over time, become rarely used and some legal authorities (such as Halsbury's Laws of England) consider it to be probably obsolete. The principles of "responsible government" require that the Prime Minister and other executive officers answer to Parliament, rather than to the Sovereign. Thus the Commons can remove such an officer through a motion of no confidence without a long, drawn-out impeachment. However, it is argued by some that the remedy of impeachment remains as part of British constitutional law, and that legislation would be required to abolish it. Furthermore, impeachment as a means of punishment for wrongdoing, as distinct from being a means of removing a minister, remains a valid reason for accepting that it continues to be available, at least in theory.
(contd)
is it too abstruse to wonder if SCOTUK will consider this, and note that prorogation removes parliaments ability to impeach, whcih may - or may not - have any bearing on the outcome of the case ?
It would be interesting to know how far SCOTUK would consider:
The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 noted the previous recommendations to formally abandon the power impeachment, and stated that "The circumstances in which impeachment has taken place are now so remote from the present that the procedure may be considered obsolete".[7]Notwithstanding, on August 25, 2004, Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced his intention to move for the impeachment of Tony Blair for his role in involving Britain in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He asked the Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain whether he would confirm that the power to impeach was still available, reminding Hain that as President of the Young Liberals he had supported the attempted impeachment of Murray. Hain responded by quoting the 1999 Joint Committee's report, and the advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons that impeachment "effectively died with the advent of full responsible Parliamentary government"
as generally you need an explicit vote in the commons to pass (or repeal) a law, not just some bloke saying that's what he thinks.
Somewhere, in China, there are classes of schoolchildren learning exactly what their ancestors meant when they wished the people of Britain to "live in interesting times ..."