The UK Supreme Court has ruled against the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be recognised as an inventor for patent rights, Reuters reported on Wednesday. &nbsp;

The case revolved around US computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought to register patents in the UK for inventions generated by his AI system named DABUS. Thaler's attempt was rejected by the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which argued that patent rights should be attributed to a natural person or a company rather than a machine.&nbsp;

The UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed Thaler's appeal, affirming that, under UK patent law, an inventor must be a natural person. While addressing the specific case at hand, Judge David Kitchin emphasised that the ruling did not address the broader question of whether technical advances produced autonomously by AI should be eligible for patents. &nbsp;

Thaler's legal team expressed concerns, stating that the ruling highlights the inadequacy of current UK patent law in protecting inventions autonomously generated by AI machines, potentially hindering industries reliant on AI-driven technological advancements.&nbsp;

The UK's IPO welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, providing clarity on the existing law regarding the patenting of AI-generated creations. Acknowledging the evolving landscape, the IPO spokesperson recognised the legitimate questions surrounding how the patent system and intellectual property, in general, should handle such AI-generated creations. The government expressed its commitment to keeping this area of law under review.&nbsp;

Earlier this year, Stephen Thaler experienced a similar defeat in the US when the US Supreme Court turned down his appeal against the US Patent and Trademark Office's denial of patents for discoveries produced by his AI system. &nbsp;

While the UK Supreme Court's ruling aligns with decisions from courts in Europe, Australia, and the US, legal experts anticipate potential changes in the medium term as AI evolves from being a tool to an agent.&nbsp;

Despite the current legal stance, Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, noted that the decision is not expected to have a significant impact on the patent system at present. Parsons emphasised that as AI evolves, addressing potential challenges in patent law can be tackled when they arise. &nbsp;

Rajvinder Jagdev, an intellectual property partner at Powell Gilbert, highlighted that the judgment does not preclude individuals from using AI to devise inventions, provided that a natural person is identified as the inventor. In a separate case last month, London's High Court affirmed that artificial neural networks can attract patent protection under UK law.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The UK Supreme Court has ruled against the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be recognised as an inventor for patent rights, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled against the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be recognised as an inventor for patent rights, Reuters reported on Wednesday. The case revolved around US computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought to register patents in the UK for inventions generated by his AI system named DABUS. Thaler's attempt was rejected by the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which argued that patent rights should be attributed to a natural person or a company rather than a machine. The UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed Thaler's appeal, affirming that, under UK patent law, an inventor must be a natural person. While addressing the specific case at hand, Judge David Kitchin emphasised that the ruling did not address the broader question of whether technical advances produced autonomously by AI should be eligible for patents. Thaler's legal team expressed concerns, stating that the ruling highlights the inadequacy of current UK patent law in protecting inventions autonomously generated by AI machines, potentially hindering industries reliant on AI-driven technological advancements. The UK's IPO welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, providing clarity on the existing law regarding the patenting of AI-generated creations. Acknowledging the evolving landscape, the IPO spokesperson recognised the legitimate questions surrounding how the patent system and intellectual property, in general, should handle such AI-generated creations. The government expressed its commitment to keeping this area of law under review. Earlier this year, Stephen Thaler experienced a similar defeat in the US when the US Supreme Court turned down his appeal against the US Patent and Trademark Office's denial of patents for discoveries produced by his AI system. While the UK Supreme Court's ruling aligns with decisions from courts in Europe, Australia, and the US, legal experts anticipate potential changes in the medium term as AI evolves from being a tool to an agent. Despite the current legal stance, Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, noted that the decision is not expected to have a significant impact on the patent system at present. Parsons emphasised that as AI evolves, addressing potential challenges in patent law can be tackled when they arise. Rajvinder Jagdev, an intellectual property partner at Powell Gilbert, highlighted that the judgment does not preclude individuals from using AI to devise inventions, provided that a natural person is identified as the inventor. In a separate case last month, London's High Court affirmed that artificial neural networks can attract patent protection under UK law. (With inputs from Reuters) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

UK Supreme Court rules against AI as patent 'Inventor' in landmark case 

The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Scotland cannot go forward with a second independence referendum without the approval of the British parliament. The ruling from the top judges in the UK said that the Scottish parliament does not have the power to organise the referendum independently.&nbsp;

The power to call a referendum was "reserved" to the UK parliament, and therefore "the Scottish parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence", Supreme Court president Robert Reed said while delivering the unanimous ruling, reported Sky News.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/multiple-explosions-rock-jerusalem-at-least-13-injured-casualties-feared-536659">One killed, 22 injured after multiple explosions near bus stops in Jerusalem</a>

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had earlier proposed a second referendum - known as IndyRef2 - for next October and that was supported by the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP). She also said that the next general election can also serve as an indication of what the country feels about the referendum.

"A law that doesn't allow Scotland to choose our own future without (UK parliament) consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership," the Scottish National Party leader tweeted after the judgement.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/virginia-multiple-fatalities-reported-after-mass-shooting-at-chesapeake-walmart-536650">Virginia: Seven killed in mass shooting at Chesapeake Walmart, shooter among dead, say cops</a>

Sturgeon had earlier requested a special order under Section 30 of the 1998 Scottish Act to hold the referendum, but it was rejected by four prime ministers.

As a result, the issue was taken to the Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the effects of legislation “are not restricted to legal consequences but can include its practical consequences” and as a result, the special exemption cannot be granted under these circumstances.

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Scotland cannot go forward with a second independence referendum without the approval of the British parliament.

The United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Scotland cannot go forward with a second independence referendum without the approval of the British parliament. The ruling from the top judges in the UK said that the Scottish parliament does not have the power to organise the referendum independently. The power to call a referendum was "reserved" to the UK parliament, and therefore "the Scottish parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence", Supreme Court president Robert Reed said while delivering the unanimous ruling, reported Sky News. Also read | One killed, 22 injured after multiple explosions near bus stops in Jerusalem Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had earlier proposed a second referendum - known as IndyRef2 - for next October and that was supported by the ruling Scottish National Party (SNP). She also said that the next general election can also serve as an indication of what the country feels about the referendum. "A law that doesn't allow Scotland to choose our own future without (UK parliament) consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership," the Scottish National Party leader tweeted after the judgement. Also read | Virginia: Seven killed in mass shooting at Chesapeake Walmart, shooter among dead, say cops Sturgeon had earlier requested a special order under Section 30 of the 1998 Scottish Act to hold the referendum, but it was rejected by four prime ministers. As a result, the issue was taken to the Supreme Court and the judges ruled that the effects of legislation “are not restricted to legal consequences but can include its practical consequences” and as a result, the special exemption cannot be granted under these circumstances.

UK Supreme Court blocks Scotland from holding second independence referendum

The Supreme of the United Kingdom has rejected British campaigner Christie Elan-Cane's appeal of granting approval to ''genderless'' passports.

Elan-Cane, who identifies as "non-gendered," has accused Britain's passport application process of being "inherently discriminatory".

The activist said Britain's current policy, to only offer male or female categories, represented a breach of European Convention of Human Rights articles governing respect for private life and discrimination on the basis of gender or sex.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/these-countries-allow-non-binary-gender-on-passports-like-in-us-424698">Also see |&nbsp;These countries allow non-binary gender on passports like in US</a>

A panel of judges unanimously dismissed the appeal, saying the gender of passport applicants is “a biographical detail which can be used to confirm their identity by checking it against the birth, adoption or gender recognition certificates provided and other official records.”

"It is, therefore, gender recognised for legal purposes and recorded in those documents which is relevant," said judge Robert Reed in the ruling.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-the-pronoun-punch-why-hostility-against-gender-neutral-identity-433028">Also read |&nbsp;The Pronoun punch: Why hostility against gender-neutral identity?</a>

"Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right ... it is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport," Elan-Cane said in a statement after the ruling.

"This is not the end," the campaigner wrote on Twitter, promising to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It's hard to reconcile the UK's claim that it is a "leader" on LGBTIQ rights with its unwillingness to issue someone a simple passport with an X marker. <a href="https://twitter.com/ChristieElanCan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ChristieElanCan</a>, thank you for continuing the fight. <a href="https://t.co/eHBqvCRhfW">https://t.co/eHBqvCRhfW</a>
— Neela Ghoshal (@NeelaGhoshal) <a href="https://twitter.com/NeelaGhoshal/status/1471207088286322696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The court case has come as more people define themselves as non-gendered, or non-binary, including British singer Sam Smith, who asked in September last year to be referred to by the pronouns "they" and "them".

After shedding a female identity, Elan-Cane first started campaigning for genderless people in 1992, arguing that passports should have an "X" option for those who do not identify as either male or female.

Globally more than 10 countries, including Bangladesh, Canada, Germany, India and Australia, currently offer gender marker options beyond male or female.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme of the United Kingdom has rejected British campaigner Christie Elan-Cane's appeal of granting approval to ''genderless'' passports. Elan-Cane, who identifies as "non-gendered," has accused Britain's passport application process of being "inherently discriminatory".

The Supreme of the United Kingdom has rejected British campaigner Christie Elan-Cane's appeal of granting approval to ''genderless'' passports. Elan-Cane, who identifies as "non-gendered," has accused Britain's passport application process of being "inherently discriminatory". The activist said Britain's current policy, to only offer male or female categories, represented a breach of European Convention of Human Rights articles governing respect for private life and discrimination on the basis of gender or sex. Also see | These countries allow non-binary gender on passports like in US A panel of judges unanimously dismissed the appeal, saying the gender of passport applicants is “a biographical detail which can be used to confirm their identity by checking it against the birth, adoption or gender recognition certificates provided and other official records.” "It is, therefore, gender recognised for legal purposes and recorded in those documents which is relevant," said judge Robert Reed in the ruling. Also read | The Pronoun punch: Why hostility against gender-neutral identity? "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right ... it is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport," Elan-Cane said in a statement after the ruling. "This is not the end," the campaigner wrote on Twitter, promising to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It's hard to reconcile the UK's claim that it is a "leader" on LGBTIQ rights with its unwillingness to issue someone a simple passport with an X marker. @ChristieElanCan, thank you for continuing the fight. https://t.co/eHBqvCRhfW — Neela Ghoshal (@NeelaGhoshal) December 15, 2021 × The court case has come as more people define themselves as non-gendered, or non-binary, including British singer Sam Smith, who asked in September last year to be referred to by the pronouns "they" and "them". After shedding a female identity, Elan-Cane first started campaigning for genderless people in 1992, arguing that passports should have an "X" option for those who do not identify as either male or female. Globally more than 10 countries, including Bangladesh, Canada, Germany, India and Australia, currently offer gender marker options beyond male or female. (With inputs from agencies)

UK's highest court rejects campaigner Christie Elan-Cane's appeal of gender-neutral passports

Britain's top court on Friday ruled that ride-hailing giant Uber's drivers are entitled to workers' rights, in a judgment with huge implications for the "gig economy".

The Supreme Court ruling that the drivers were employees followed a years-long legal battle with the Silicon Valley taxi and delivery company.

"This has been a gruelling four-year legal battle for our members -- but it's ended in a historic win," said Mick Rix, from the GMB trade union.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of three previous courts, backing up what GMB has said all along; Uber drivers are workers and entitled to breaks, holiday pay and minimum wage," he added.

Uber said it respected the court ruling.

Lower courts ruled in 2016, 2017 and 2018 in favour of a group of 20 Uber drivers who argue they were entitled to employee status given the length of time they had been working through the Uber app, and the way that the company oversaw their work.

Uber insisted that the drivers were self-employed since they choose their own hours and place of work, and often find passengers through rival apps.

The complainants can now ask an employment tribunal for compensation, and it could trigger further-reaching changes affecting all ride-hailing drivers.

"GMB will now consult with our Uber driver members over their forthcoming compensation claim," said Rix.

The ruling could equally affect other online platforms behind the so-called gig economy in Britain -- people doing short-term work without formal contracts, or working without guaranteed hours.

Couriers for the Deliveroo food app are currently fighting in the Court of Appeal in London for the right to collective bargaining.

Uber claimed that it has changed the way it works since legal action began.

Drivers can now choose when and where they drive and can also access free health insurance as well as compensation for parental leave, it said.

Joint fund

Ahead of the court ruling, Uber vowed to increase protection for drivers while keeping them self-employed.

Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi on Monday presented a series of promises to European governments and trade unions.

He said the aim was to offer a transparent and fair pay structure and more benefits to drivers.

Uber is calling for companies in the sector to form a joint fund that would allow drivers who work for different apps to be able to access protections and benefits such as paid holidays.

Uber plans to replicate in Europe proposals it first made in California after a court in the US state ordered the platform to classify its tens of thousands of drivers as employees.

But voters in November then backed Proposition 22, a measure designed by Uber and other gig companies that would mean drivers remained independent contractors while receiving some benefits.

Friday's decision is not expected to affect Uber's right to operate in London, which has been subject to a separate dispute.

The platform last September regained the right in London for 18 months, after a court overruled a decision by city authorities to suspend its licence due to concerns over passenger security.

Britain's top court on Friday ruled that ride-hailing giant Uber's drivers are entitled to workers' rights, in a judgment with huge implications for the "gig economy".

Britain's top court on Friday ruled that ride-hailing giant Uber's drivers are entitled to workers' rights, in a judgment with huge implications for the "gig economy". The Supreme Court ruling that the drivers were employees followed a years-long legal battle with the Silicon Valley taxi and delivery company. "This has been a gruelling four-year legal battle for our members -- but it's ended in a historic win," said Mick Rix, from the GMB trade union. "The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of three previous courts, backing up what GMB has said all along; Uber drivers are workers and entitled to breaks, holiday pay and minimum wage," he added. Uber said it respected the court ruling. Lower courts ruled in 2016, 2017 and 2018 in favour of a group of 20 Uber drivers who argue they were entitled to employee status given the length of time they had been working through the Uber app, and the way that the company oversaw their work. Uber insisted that the drivers were self-employed since they choose their own hours and place of work, and often find passengers through rival apps. The complainants can now ask an employment tribunal for compensation, and it could trigger further-reaching changes affecting all ride-hailing drivers. "GMB will now consult with our Uber driver members over their forthcoming compensation claim," said Rix. The ruling could equally affect other online platforms behind the so-called gig economy in Britain -- people doing short-term work without formal contracts, or working without guaranteed hours. Couriers for the Deliveroo food app are currently fighting in the Court of Appeal in London for the right to collective bargaining. Uber claimed that it has changed the way it works since legal action began. Drivers can now choose when and where they drive and can also access free health insurance as well as compensation for parental leave, it said. Joint fund Ahead of the court ruling, Uber vowed to increase protection for drivers while keeping them self-employed. Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi on Monday presented a series of promises to European governments and trade unions. He said the aim was to offer a transparent and fair pay structure and more benefits to drivers. Uber is calling for companies in the sector to form a joint fund that would allow drivers who work for different apps to be able to access protections and benefits such as paid holidays. Uber plans to replicate in Europe proposals it first made in California after a court in the US state ordered the platform to classify its tens of thousands of drivers as employees. But voters in November then backed Proposition 22, a measure designed by Uber and other gig companies that would mean drivers remained independent contractors while receiving some benefits. Friday's decision is not expected to affect Uber's right to operate in London, which has been subject to a separate dispute. The platform last September regained the right in London for 18 months, after a court overruled a decision by city authorities to suspend its licence due to concerns over passenger security.

Uber drivers are workers, not self-employed: UK Supreme Court

US President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;threw his weight Tuesday behind&nbsp;Boris&nbsp;Johnson's plan to exit the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-ruling-could-throw-boris-johnsons-brexit-plan-into-more-disarray-251621">European Union</a> as the British leader suffered a major setback in court.

Trump said it took a man such as Johnson to get Brexit done and that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-pm-vows-to-pursue-brexit-plan-despite-supreme-court-blow-251822">Brexit had to be done</a>.

"It takes a man like this to get it done,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said of Johnson, adding, "I think he is going to get it done."

"It would be a terrible thing to do it any other way," Trump added as the&nbsp;pair met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.&nbsp;

Trump also dismissed&nbsp;British opposition demands that Johnson should resign after the&nbsp;Supreme Court ruled he had acted unlawfully.

Asked by reporters about calls for Johnson to resign, Trump said, "I'll tell you, I know him well, he’s not going anywhere."

Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes!

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-trouble-follows-boris-johnson-wherever-he-goes-250683/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Johnson on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with his plan for Brexit on October 31, despite a momentous Supreme Court ruling that found his decision to suspend parliament unlawful.

<meta name="uuid" content="uuidDg2f112Pi0um" /><meta charset="utf-8" />

The American president told reporters that he had "no reaction" when he heard that Britain's highest court had ruled against Johnson.

"He's a professional. It's just another day in the office,"&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;said of his British counterpart.

The ruling came after a series of defeats in parliament that had curbed Johnson's plans to leave the EU at the end of next month even without a divorce deal with Brussels.

Three years after the 2016 Brexit referendum, Johnson has insisted Britain must leave the EU without further delays, but lawmakers fear the disruptive impact of exiting without a deal with Brussels.

Johnson told reporters in New York that he "strongly disagreed" with the court decision but said he would respect it.

He also renewed his calls for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour party, to back a general election.

Corbyn said Johnson should resign after the court judgement.

US President Donald Trump threw his weight Tuesday behind Boris Johnson's plan to exit the European Union as the British leader suffered a major setback in court.

US President Donald Trump threw his weight Tuesday behind Boris Johnson's plan to exit the European Union as the British leader suffered a major setback in court. Trump said it took a man such as Johnson to get Brexit done and that Brexit had to be done. "It takes a man like this to get it done," Trump said of Johnson, adding, "I think he is going to get it done." "It would be a terrible thing to do it any other way," Trump added as the pair met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Trump also dismissed British opposition demands that Johnson should resign after the Supreme Court ruled he had acted unlawfully. Asked by reporters about calls for Johnson to resign, Trump said, "I'll tell you, I know him well, he’s not going anywhere." Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes! × Johnson on Tuesday vowed to press ahead with his plan for Brexit on October 31, despite a momentous Supreme Court ruling that found his decision to suspend parliament unlawful. The American president told reporters that he had "no reaction" when he heard that Britain's highest court had ruled against Johnson. "He's a professional. It's just another day in the office," Trump said of his British counterpart. The ruling came after a series of defeats in parliament that had curbed Johnson's plans to leave the EU at the end of next month even without a divorce deal with Brussels. Three years after the 2016 Brexit referendum, Johnson has insisted Britain must leave the EU without further delays, but lawmakers fear the disruptive impact of exiting without a deal with Brussels. Johnson told reporters in New York that he "strongly disagreed" with the court decision but said he would respect it. He also renewed his calls for Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain's main opposition Labour party, to back a general election. Corbyn said Johnson should resign after the court judgement.

Should PM Boris Johnson resign? Donald Trump says, 'he's not going anywhere'

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-ruling-could-throw-boris-johnsons-brexit-plan-into-more-disarray-251621">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a> had acted unlawfully when he advised Queen Elizabeth to suspend parliament weeks before Brexit - and that therefore the suspension was void.

The ruling paves the way for legislators to return to parliament, where Johnson has no majority. It could give lawmakers, most of whom are opposed to leaving without the EU without a divorce agreement as he has threatened to do, further opportunity to impede his strategy.

"The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification," Supreme Court President Brenda Hale said.

"Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices," she added. "It is for parliament, and in particular the speaker and the (House of) Lords speaker, to decide what to do next."

Parliament was suspended, or prorogued in the British jargon, from Sept. 10 to Oct. 14. The prorogation was approved by Queen Elizabeth, Britain's politically neutral head of state, on the advice of the prime minister.

"I welcome the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-told-boris-johnson-is-father-of-lies-250462">Supreme Cour</a>t's judgment that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful," said the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.

"As the embodiment of our Parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay. To this end, I will now consult the party leaders as a matter of urgency."

Some lawmakers, including those thrown out of Johnson's Conservative Party for rebelling against his Brexit plans, had said he should resign if he was found to have misled the queen.

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully when he advised Queen Elizabeth to suspend parliament weeks before Brexit - and that therefore the suspension was void.

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully when he advised Queen Elizabeth to suspend parliament weeks before Brexit - and that therefore the suspension was void. The ruling paves the way for legislators to return to parliament, where Johnson has no majority. It could give lawmakers, most of whom are opposed to leaving without the EU without a divorce agreement as he has threatened to do, further opportunity to impede his strategy. "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification," Supreme Court President Brenda Hale said. "Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices," she added. "It is for parliament, and in particular the speaker and the (House of) Lords speaker, to decide what to do next." Parliament was suspended, or prorogued in the British jargon, from Sept. 10 to Oct. 14. The prorogation was approved by Queen Elizabeth, Britain's politically neutral head of state, on the advice of the prime minister. "I welcome the Supreme Court's judgment that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful," said the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. "As the embodiment of our Parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay. To this end, I will now consult the party leaders as a matter of urgency." Some lawmakers, including those thrown out of Johnson's Conservative Party for rebelling against his Brexit plans, had said he should resign if he was found to have misled the queen.

Decision to suspend UK parliament was 'unlawful': Supreme Court

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is the "father of lies" who shut down the mother of parliaments in the run-up to Brexit, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/not-for-courts-to-decide-parliament-suspension-uk-pm-boris-johnsons-lawyer-250441">Britain's Supreme Court</a> heard Wednesday.

In the second of three days of highly-charged arguments over whether Johnson's advice to Queen Elizabeth II to suspend the legislature was unlawful, Britain's highest court was told that his move was destroying parliamentary democracy.

The lawyer representing around 75 parliamentarians who challenged Johnson's actions said the premier had unlawfully abused his power by closing parliament for five weeks until October 14 -- with Britain due to leave the EU on October 31.

One might think that a government "would engage solely in high politics as opposed to low, dishonest dirty tricks but I'm not sure we can assume that of this government," lawyer Aidan O'Neill said.

"The mother of parliaments is being shut down by the father of lies. The rule that this prorogation is an unlawful abuse of power," O'Neill told judges.

"Enough is enough."

Johnson, who took office in July, says he prorogued, or suspended, parliament to open a new session with a fresh legislative agenda.

His opponents claim he did so to silence opposition to his plans to take Britain out of the EU on October 31, with or without a divorce deal with Brussels.

'Stymie parliament' claim 'unsustainable'&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is hearing appeals against two conflicting lower court decisions.

Scotland's highest civil court found the suspension was unlawful, but the High Court in England said it was not a matter for judges to intervene in.

The government's lawyer told the Supreme Court that parliament had been debating Britain's exit from the European Union for three years since the 2016 referendum vote to leave.

James Eadie argued that if MPs had needed more time, they had the opportunity to legislate before Johnson suspended their sitting on September 10.

"If the basic attack is this was improper purpose, motivation or effect, because it was designed to stymie parliament, we respectfully submit: that is unsustainable," Eadie said.

He said parliament had previously passed laws on prorogation, but there was no law relevant to the case and so England's High Court was right that prorogation was not something the judiciary could intervene in.

Eadie said any decision to prorogue parliament was "inherently and fundamentally political in nature" as it concerned managing the government's legislative agenda, curtailing parliamentary debate and deciding on when it might be appropriate to end a sitting.

"This is, we submit, therefore the territory of political judgement, not legal standards," he said.

'True reasons'

Judge Nicholas Wilson questioned Eadie on the lack of a witness statement from the prime minister.

"Isn't it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement to say 'this is true, these are the true reasons for what was done'?" he asked.

Eadie said cabinet documents had been produced which showed the aim of prorogation was to bring forward a new legislative agenda.

But O'Neill said the few documents offered could not be taken as the "whole truth", adding: "We cannot have a situation... where prorogation can be used with impunity to close down parliament whenever it becomes inconvenient."

A maximum 11 of the 12 Supreme Court judges are hearing the case.

They have not said when they intend to make a ruling following Thursday's closing hearings, during whihch lawyers for the Scottish government and for 1990s prime minister John Major are due to intervene. 
&nbsp;

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is the "father of lies" who shut down the mother of parliaments in the run-up to Brexit, Britain's Supreme Court heard Wednesday. In the second of three days of highly-charged arguments over whether Johnson's advice to Queen Elizabeth II to suspend the legislature was unlawful, Britain's highest court was told that his move was destroying parliamentary democracy.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson is the "father of lies" who shut down the mother of parliaments in the run-up to Brexit, Britain's Supreme Court heard Wednesday. In the second of three days of highly-charged arguments over whether Johnson's advice to Queen Elizabeth II to suspend the legislature was unlawful, Britain's highest court was told that his move was destroying parliamentary democracy. The lawyer representing around 75 parliamentarians who challenged Johnson's actions said the premier had unlawfully abused his power by closing parliament for five weeks until October 14 -- with Britain due to leave the EU on October 31. One might think that a government "would engage solely in high politics as opposed to low, dishonest dirty tricks but I'm not sure we can assume that of this government," lawyer Aidan O'Neill said. "The mother of parliaments is being shut down by the father of lies. The rule that this prorogation is an unlawful abuse of power," O'Neill told judges. "Enough is enough." Johnson, who took office in July, says he prorogued, or suspended, parliament to open a new session with a fresh legislative agenda. His opponents claim he did so to silence opposition to his plans to take Britain out of the EU on October 31, with or without a divorce deal with Brussels. 'Stymie parliament' claim 'unsustainable' The Supreme Court is hearing appeals against two conflicting lower court decisions. Scotland's highest civil court found the suspension was unlawful, but the High Court in England said it was not a matter for judges to intervene in. The government's lawyer told the Supreme Court that parliament had been debating Britain's exit from the European Union for three years since the 2016 referendum vote to leave. James Eadie argued that if MPs had needed more time, they had the opportunity to legislate before Johnson suspended their sitting on September 10. "If the basic attack is this was improper purpose, motivation or effect, because it was designed to stymie parliament, we respectfully submit: that is unsustainable," Eadie said. He said parliament had previously passed laws on prorogation, but there was no law relevant to the case and so England's High Court was right that prorogation was not something the judiciary could intervene in. Eadie said any decision to prorogue parliament was "inherently and fundamentally political in nature" as it concerned managing the government's legislative agenda, curtailing parliamentary debate and deciding on when it might be appropriate to end a sitting. "This is, we submit, therefore the territory of political judgement, not legal standards," he said. 'True reasons' Judge Nicholas Wilson questioned Eadie on the lack of a witness statement from the prime minister. "Isn't it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement to say 'this is true, these are the true reasons for what was done'?" he asked. Eadie said cabinet documents had been produced which showed the aim of prorogation was to bring forward a new legislative agenda. But O'Neill said the few documents offered could not be taken as the "whole truth", adding: "We cannot have a situation... where prorogation can be used with impunity to close down parliament whenever it becomes inconvenient." A maximum 11 of the 12 Supreme Court judges are hearing the case. They have not said when they intend to make a ruling following Thursday's closing hearings, during whihch lawyers for the Scottish government and for 1990s prime minister John Major are due to intervene.

UK Supreme Court told Boris Johnson is 'father of lies'

A legal appeal to determine whether Britain alone can change its mind about leaving the European Union should be given consideration by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Scotland's highest court said on Friday in a boost to anti-Brexit campaigners.

The Court of Session decision means the ECJ should say whether it is legally possible for Britain to stay in the world's biggest trading bloc if its parliament so decides.

Petitioners argued that legal certainty about the process is needed in advance of any British parliamentary vote because no country has ever withdrawn from the European Union.

Prime Minister Theresa May's plans for Brexit are mired in doubt after EU leaders cautioned her on Thursday that unless she presented an alternative to her current proposal, Britain would crash out of the EU without a deal.

Friday's decision could now, theoretically, be appealed again before the UK Supreme Court, although legal sources close to the case believe that option is unlikely.

Pro-European petitioners argued that while there is no legal doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 member states, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not.

Judges at the Court of Session said they had agreed to refer the case for advice on EU law from the ECJ.

British government officials were unavailable to comment.

A legal appeal to determine whether Britain alone can change its mind about leaving the European Union should be given consideration by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Scotland's highest court said on Friday in a boost to anti-Brexit campaigners.

A legal appeal to determine whether Britain alone can change its mind about leaving the European Union should be given consideration by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), Scotland's highest court said on Friday in a boost to anti-Brexit campaigners. The Court of Session decision means the ECJ should say whether it is legally possible for Britain to stay in the world's biggest trading bloc if its parliament so decides. Petitioners argued that legal certainty about the process is needed in advance of any British parliamentary vote because no country has ever withdrawn from the European Union. Prime Minister Theresa May's plans for Brexit are mired in doubt after EU leaders cautioned her on Thursday that unless she presented an alternative to her current proposal, Britain would crash out of the EU without a deal. Friday's decision could now, theoretically, be appealed again before the UK Supreme Court, although legal sources close to the case believe that option is unlikely. Pro-European petitioners argued that while there is no legal doubt that Britain could stop Brexit with the permission of the other 27 member states, it should seek to establish a legal right to do so unilaterally whether the rest of the bloc likes it or not. Judges at the Court of Session said they had agreed to refer the case for advice on EU law from the ECJ. British government officials were unavailable to comment.

European court should say if UK alone can stop Brexit: Scottish judges

&nbsp;Britain will trigger the legal process for leaving the European Union by the end of March despite a court ruling that means the government needs to get parliamentary approval, a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said on Tuesday.

The UK&#39;s highest judicial body dismissed a government argument that May could simply use executive powers known as &quot;royal prerogative&quot; to invoke Article 50 of the EU&#39;s Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of divorce talks.

&quot;The British people voted to leave the EU, and the government will deliver on their verdict &ndash; triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today&#39;s ruling does nothing to change that,&quot; the spokesman said.

&quot;We respect the Supreme Court&#39;s decision, and will set out our next steps to Parliament shortly.&quot;

(Reuters)

Britain will trigger the legal process for leaving the EU by the end of March despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the spokesman said

Britain will trigger the legal process for leaving the European Union by the end of March despite a court ruling that means the government needs to get parliamentary approval, a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said on Tuesday. The UK's highest judicial body dismissed a government argument that May could simply use executive powers known as "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of divorce talks. "The British people voted to leave the EU, and the government will deliver on their verdict – triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today's ruling does nothing to change that," the spokesman said. "We respect the Supreme Court's decision, and will set out our next steps to Parliament shortly." (Reuters)

Article 50 ruling does not change Brexit timetable: Spokesman for PM May

uk-supreme-court

Uk Supreme Court, News on Uk Supreme Court, stories on Uk Supreme Court, articles on Uk Supreme Court, Uk Supreme Court stories at Wion, Uk Supreme Court news, Uk Supreme Court latest news

uk supreme-court