BORIS Johnson appears to have agreed to suspend Parliament two weeks before privy counsellors met the Queen at Balmoral to ask for the shutdown.
The details emerged as a legal action aimed at halting the suspension of Parliament got underway at the Court of Session - Scotland's highest civil court.
A note dated August 15 from Nickki da Costa, a former director of legislative affairs at Number 10, and seen by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his adviser Dominic Cummings, asked whether an approach should be made to prorogue Parliament.
The court heard the note talked about the idea "we should prorogue sometime between the end of Monday, September 9 and Thursday, September 12 allowing for longstanding conference recess and return on Monday, October 14..."
A note of "yes" was written on the document, the Court of Session in Edinburgh heard, although the author of the annotation was not disclosed in court.
READ MORE: UK Government will defend its decision to prorogue Parliament
The prime minister announced 13 days later that he wanted to shut down Parliament for five weeks from next week.
During the Conservative leadership hustings, Mr Johnson had said he did not want to prorogue parliament but refused to rule it out as an option.
Speaking at a hustings for Conservative members in Bournemouth on June 27, he said: “Rather than confiding in this archaic device to get this thing done at my own behest, I would rather confide in the maturity of common sense of parliamentarians, all of whom are now staring down the barrel of public distrust.”
Pressed to categorically rule it out he added: “I’m not attracted to the idea of a no-deal exit from the EU but, you know, I think it would be absolutely folly to rule it out. I think it’s an essential tool of our negotiation.
“I don’t envisage the circumstances in which it will be necessary to prorogue parliament, nor am I attracted to that expedient.”
Aiden O'Neill QC, representing the parliamentarians, said in court : "One presumes this was a document sent in the red box to the Prime Minister to be read at his leisure."
Mr Johnson replied the following day with a handwritten note describing the September session of Parliament as a "rigmarole" designed to show MPs were "earning their crust".
He added it should not be "shocking" to suspend Parliament.
READ MORE: Edinburgh is Scottish hotspot as 1250 a minute support anti-proroguing petition
The Queen met the Privy Council on August 28 to approve the move - with critics such as Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon branding Mr Johnson a "tin pot dictator".
A decision was made to bring a full hearing forward to Tuesday from this Friday after the judge ruled it would be "in the interest of justice that it proceeds sooner rather than later".
If an interim interdict had been granted it would have immediately lifted the royal order to suspend Parliament.
A full interdict could still be granted by the judge.
The case has been brought by a cross-party group of 75 MPs and peers.
Mr O'Neill described Mr Johnson as having a record that was "characterised by incontinent mendacity, an unwillingness or inability to speak the truth".
He pointed to the documents as showing the suspension of Parliament policy was being considered much earlier than announced and argued the court had been misled.
The legal challenge was launched on August 6.
Mr O'Neill said: "This court was told nothing of that and was told in fact that this judicial review is academic, hypothetical and premature.
"That is not true. This court and these petitioners were being actively misled."
He argued the real reason to suspend Parliament was to allow a no-deal Brexit to take place by removing proper scrutiny.
Mr O'Neill also said Mr Johnson was trying to govern as an "autocracy" using "one-man rule" by these attempts.
He added: "Why were these specific dates chosen? It's because they think they're gaming the system."
It was argued decisions in two separate Brexit-related court cases, brought by activist Gina Miller and Andy Wightman MSP, show Parliament should decide whether or not the UK leaves without a deal.
Mr O'Neill said it was not lawful to create circumstances where that happens without such approval.
David Johnston QC, representing the Government, said the arguments were "academic" as it was not for the courts to decide if Parliament can be prorogued.
Mr Johnston said: "The issues these petitioners raise are political issues, political questions, and their resolution must be found in the political arenas.
"It's true to say that accountability is an important aspect on which the constitution relies.
"But accountability to the courts is not the only form of accountability.
He added: "The proper forum for these matters to be scrutinised is the political forum.
"Those who make decisions that don't go down well in the political forum will be held to account there - either in Parliament or, ultimately, by the electorate."
Judge Lord Doherty said he hoped to announce his decision on Wednesday.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel