Supreme Court to rule on Brexit case early next year
The Government faces a wait until next year to find out whether it has won its historic Brexit legal challenge at the UK's highest court.
The Government faces a wait until next year to find out whether it has won its historic Brexit legal challenge at the UK's highest court.
Eleven Supreme Court justices - a record number to hear an appeal - will announce their decision "as quickly as possible" in the new year, but no date has yet been fixed.
At the completion of four days of detailed legal argument, Lord Neuberger, president of the UK's highest court, announced: "It bears repeating we are not being asked to overturn the result of the EU referendum.
"The ultimate question in this case concerns the process by which that result can lawfully be brought into effect. As we have heard, that question raises important constitutional issues and we will now take time to ensure the many arguments presented to us orally and in writing are given full and proper consideration."
Lord Neuberger added: "Having said that, we appreciate that this case should be resolved as quickly as possible, and we will do our best to achieve that."
The proceedings began on Monday amid a blaze of publicity around the world and followed a High Court ruling against the Government on November 3.
A panel of three judges, headed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, decided then that Prime Minister Theresa May lacked legal power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the two-year process of withdrawing from the European Union.
Opponents say an Act of Parliament is needed, but Thursday's proceedings were rounded off with a final claim by James Eadie QC, for the Government, that the use of the royal prerogative is lawful.
He said the Government is asserting that the prerogative provides "a specific power to notify Article 50 and so start the process of withdrawal notwithstanding that will result in changes to domestic law".
Mr Eadie told the court the EU Referendum Act 2015 had set up the June vote. The use of the prerogative is "consistent with the legislative scheme" to give effect to the outcome of the vote to leave the EU.
He acknowledged that if primary legislation was required to trigger Brexit, it would have to be by way of an Act of Parliament.
The Government's top law officer, Attorney General Jeremy Wright, said after the Supreme Court proceedings ended: "The country voted to leave the European Union, in a referendum approved by an Act of Parliament. The Government has argued throughout that no further Act of Parliament is needed to begin the process of leaving the European Union.
"As I said in court, there was a universal expectation that the referendum result would be honoured.
"Parliament will be closely involved in the process of the UK's withdrawal from the EU over the coming months and years. Only yesterday, MPs debated a Brexit motion in the House and the Prime Minister has committed to publishing the Government's plans for leaving the EU.
"We have argued that the Government can use the powers it has to enact what the public has decided. The judges will now decide if they agree."
Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the successful High Court action, said: "The tone of this week's proceedings from everyone involved and many parts of the media showed respect, civility and professionalism and I very much hope that this will continue throughout the process of the UK's withdrawal from the EU."
Ms Miller, an investment fund manager and philanthropist who had endured death threats during the High Court hearing, added: "As my counsel Lord Pannick said, the constitutional elephant in the room remains - to give notice under Article 50 using the prerogative is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty."
During the Supreme Court case, described as being of "huge constitutional importance", the justices heard from lawyers for the Scottish and Welsh governments and those representing prominent politicians, human rights groups and individuals from Northern Ireland.
Members of the public joined a long queue each day in the hope of witnessing the landmark proceedings. Although most of the days were taken up with dry arguments about Article 50, there were some lighter moments with exchanges between justices and lawyers provoking courtroom laughter.
A ruling is expected before the end of January.