• Facebook
  • Twitter
x

MARK KERRISON | Photojournalist

  • Live News Feed
  • Slideshows
  • About
    • About
    • Data Protection
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
Show Navigation
Archive
Cart Lightbox Client Area
Add to Cart Download
twitterlinkedinfacebook

2019-09-18 Prorogation Supreme Court hearing

16 images Created 18 Sep 2019

London, UK. 18th September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller and lawyers for the Government and for Ms Miller leave the Supreme Court following the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful.
View: 100 | All

Loading ()...

  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-001.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Pannick QC, acting for businesswoman Gina Miller, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-002.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-003.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Keen QC (r),  Advocate General for Scotland, acting on behalf of the Government, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-004.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-005.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Sir James Eadie QC (l), acting for the Government, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-006.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-007.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Jolyon Maugham QC leaves the Supreme Court at lunchtime on the second day of a hearing to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law by proroguing Parliament in advance of Brexit Day.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-008.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-009.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Jolyon Maugham QC debates with Brexit supporters outside the Supreme Court at lunchtime on the second day of a hearing to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law by proroguing Parliament in advance of Brexit Day.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-010.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-011.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Keen QC (r),  Advocate General for Scotland, acting on behalf of the Government, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-012.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-013.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Lord Pannick QC, acting for businesswoman Gina Miller, leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-014.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Businesswoman Gina Miller leaves the Supreme Court at the end of the second day of a hearing to consider whether the Prime Minister broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day. The purpose of the hearing is to adjudicate as to which of two court rulings should prevail, either a ruling by the High Court that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision to be made by the Prime Minister or a ruling by the Scottish courts that the Prime Minister’s actions in proroguing Parliament were unlawful. Credit: Mark Kerrison/Alamy Live News
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-015.jpg
  • London, UK. 18 September, 2019. Brexit supporters protest outside the Supreme Court on the second day of a hearing to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending Parliament in advance of Brexit Day.
    Supreme-Court-prorogation-016.jpg