Brexit decision: Read the one paragraph from Supreme Court that devastated Boris Johnson’s plan

'It was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper'

The Supreme Court decision that destroyed Boris Johnson's plans for Brexit includes one paragraph that swiftly lays out the reasoning for the judge's shocking decision.

The country's most senior judges said that the government was acting unlawfully when it asked the Queen to prorogue parliament, and that MPs can go back to sitting and scrutinising the Brexit deal.

They made clear that the order doing so was effectively a "blank sheet of paper" and that the government's decision had absolutely no force.

The full judgement explaining why is a significant read: the summary is two dense pages, and the actual judgement is 71 paragraphs and 24 pages long. It came after a number of court hearings, and a Supreme Court decision that included the 11 most senior judges in the country.

But it all comes down to one judgement. The Supreme Court indicated that it was unlawful to prorogue parliament, and that it had no effect.

Judges expressed that decision in one very concise paragraph in their summary. The short set of sentences devestated Boris Johnson's plans for Brexit, and opened up yet another crisis for the government.

That paragraph, in full, reads:

"This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices."

After that summary, it goes on to make clear that the effects of the decision are unknown – but profound.

"It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court."

At the beginning of the judgement, rather than the summary, judges made clear what exactly the question they were being asked to answer was:

"It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. The issue is whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August 2019 that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October was lawful. It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. It is a 'one off'. But our law is used to rising to such challenges and supplies us with the legal tools to enable us to reason to a solution."