Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: Flavian

the decision has been made on opinion without proper evidence.

Do you believe the judges in Scotland are somewhat inferior to judges in England?, trust me, they know the law inside and out. Scottish law as a model going way back is used worldwide including England.

No, this court have just not used the law to make their decision. I don't want ANY court, in England Wales NI, or Scotland making up laws to rule on.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.

No one knows if he actually lied or not without his testimony on the matter. It is pure conjecture to definitively say that he lied. This is where i think this ruling actually falls down - the decision has been made on opinion without proper evidence. If you were a defendant in a similar situation, no right minded individual would dispute your right to a retrial, calling it a miscarriage of justice. This being the case, why should it be different for the government?

The court doesn't have to show he definitely lied. They have to draw a reasonable conclusion.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.

No one knows if he actually lied or not without his testimony on the matter. It is pure conjecture to definitively say that he lied. This is where i think this ruling actually falls down - the decision has been made on opinion without proper evidence. If you were a defendant in a similar situation, no right minded individual would dispute your right to a retrial, calling it a miscarriage of justice. This being the case, why should it be different for the government?

The court doesn't have to show he definitely lied. They have to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Lying about the purpose of prorogation is not against the law - which is exactly why the Scottish court has no remit to pass judgement and why the English court threw the case out.
The punishment of such (lying) is a Parliamentary process and the tools are in place to deal with it.

a reply to: UKTruth

they have used an opinion of motive

Yeah, but the motive as to why he was proroguing parliament is different from the motive he told to queen and country.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.

No one knows if he actually lied or not without his testimony on the matter. It is pure conjecture to definitively say that he lied. This is where i think this ruling actually falls down - the decision has been made on opinion without proper evidence. If you were a defendant in a similar situation, no right minded individual would dispute your right to a retrial, calling it a miscarriage of justice. This being the case, why should it be different for the government?

The court doesn't have to show he definitely lied. They have to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Lying about the purpose of prorogation is not against the law - which is exactly why the Scottish court has no remit to pass judgement and why the English court threw the case out.
The punishment of such (lying) is a Parliamentary process and the tools are in place to deal with it.

This court found otherwise.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummond Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.
If he can point to the law that he reviewed and made the determination on then he should do so.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.

No one knows if he actually lied or not without his testimony on the matter. It is pure conjecture to definitively say that he lied. This is where i think this ruling actually falls down - the decision has been made on opinion without proper evidence. If you were a defendant in a similar situation, no right minded individual would dispute your right to a retrial, calling it a miscarriage of justice. This being the case, why should it be different for the government?

The court doesn't have to show he definitely lied. They have to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Lying about the purpose of prorogation is not against the law - which is exactly why the Scottish court has no remit to pass judgement and why the English court threw the case out.
The punishment of such (lying) is a Parliamentary process and the tools are in place to deal with it.

This court found otherwise.

Indeed, which is why their ruling is illegitimate.
Judges are not above the law - they can not legitimately rule a person has acted 'unlawfully' if no law has been broken.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: UKTruth

they have used an opinion of motive

Yeah, but the motive as to why he was proroguing parliament is different from the motive he told to queen and country.

So? If true, Boris is a devious liar. Would you like me to be shocked that a politician is a devious liar?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Moreover the High Court of England and Wales have ruled in the opposite direction to the Scottish Court of Session.
So its some random anonymous bloke online AND the High Court of England and Wales supporting the view that the Scottish Court is wrong.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
a reply to: seagull
The challenge is weather BJ gave "unlawful advice" or not when speaking to her Maj, the challenge is not about the right to prorogue
Lots of nonsense of course, people with money wasting taxpayer time and money, to the point most now just dont give a snip, apathy the perfect state of the populous from a politicians point of view.

In a murder trial wouldn't that be called supposition and lack of clear evidence.

Even Prince Andrew is given the benefit of the doubt!!

a reply to: UKTruth

Remember, the cases presented to the Court of Session and to the High Court were similar in intent but very different in terms of the evidence presented to them.

Evidence was presented to the Court of Session to the effect that, in mid August, the Prime Minister's confirmed intention was to prorogue Parliament in September. Meanwhile, Downing Street and government ministers were briefing that the Government had no such intention whatever.

Now, how people view that evidence is very much up to them. Some see that as political tactics and all part of the game. Others see that as deliberately misleading and, well, that's how the Court of Session sees it.

It'll be interesting to see how the UK Supreme Court rules on it, now that they have evidence which wasn't presented to the High Court down south. Either way, the UK Supreme Court now has to decide whether the Prime Minister has exceeded (or abused) his executive powers. The court has to enforce the law. But, in this case, our laws don't define the circumstances in which Parliament is prorogued or how long is reasonable for such a prorogation. That's why this will be such an important decision.

Only thing I would say, of the Court of Session, all three judges have agreed although they've each come to their judgment by a different route. I don't think any are politically motivated as such although I accept that sometimes the judiciary tends towards an Establishment position. I think it's good that a Court has decided that the Government needs to be held to account by Parliament, although it's a bit sad that it's even had to come to court at all. Their decision is such good commonsense.

The Yellowhammer documents are hitting the press as I type this ...

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

a reply to: TheShippingForecast

Sure, but the ruling in the High Court of England & Wales made it clear that the court has no standing in the law to deal with such matters. Boris lying about his intentions does not change that - there is no legal standing to punish lying (not under oath) in a court of law.

OK, I've got it that he has the right to do this. Now then, I suppose, my next question is are there any guidelines regarding the reasons he may ask the Queen to do this??

If not, I don't see how he's in violation of anything at all... If there are guidelines which has he violated.

I'm still trying to puzzle this out, so be gentle...

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

star from me, I don't give a # now, voted remain, lost, moved on, just get it done, leave on Halloween deal or no deal, I'm #in sick of it now leave means leave or referendums mean # all 🙄

originally posted by: seagull
OK, I've got it that he has the right to do this. Now then, I suppose, my next question is are there any guidelines regarding the reasons he may ask the Queen to do this??

If not, I don't see how he's in violation of anything at all... If there are guidelines which has he violated.

I'm still trying to puzzle this out, so be gentle...

Courts drilling was that parliaments right to scrutinise legislation is central to UK constitution.

If his intent was to stop that then it's illegal.

Supreme court may disagree either on his intent or if his intent was relevant.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

a reply to: seagull
I'm an old student of history rather than a lawyer, but I suspect this hostile action is going to stumble over the obstacle of the traditional question "is there any legal precedent for this?" I don't imagine this issue has ever come up before, so there can't be much in the way of existing rules to control the situation