Court of Session prorogation case: full judgment published

In the matter of the Petition of Joanna Cherry and 78 others for judicial review of Her Majesty’s prorogation of Parliament, I find as follows:

That the petitioners tae hae brought sic a matter afore this court is a scandalous proceeding close tae contempt. There is nae even a shadow o’ a trial ‘ere fur this court, and yon petitioners, hae they but half an ounce o’ sense atween them knew that fur th’ gey beginnin’ – and as learned counsel sit amangst them I have nae doot they knew it, yet they came here for a’ that. They have wasted their ain time, for which I presume they reckon nae value, but wi’ all they have wasted the time o’ this court, o’ the clerks and staff o’ the court and, whilk is worse, my time, in pursuing a ludicrous case for nae more than their ain vanity. This is the noblest court of law i’ the land, no a billboard for a cheap show at the Fringe.

The De’il tak ye a’. The only winners here are th’ lawyers, who appear here in stoatin force and, I hae nae doubt, at stoatin expense, and one I see among them most famous for these japes in London: see you, Maugham – it’s Jolyon by name; on a jolly by nature, is it? Filling your purse for the exploitation o’ gullible fools is an advocate’s business, so I’ll say nae word against ye.

A word these bampots should learn: ‘non-justiciable’; and this matter is as non-justiciable as any pile o’ crud ever to hae disgraced my court, and nae sense o’ false outrage will mak it otherwise. Here we deal wi’ law, and ‘unlawful’ disnae mean ‘what I don’t like’. I must repeat how many times I must, by the way: this a court of law wi’ dread authority o’er a’ for the benefit of a’: it is nae the St Andrew’s Undergrad Debating Society.

Ah’m heavy ragin’, at ye, so I am. Awa wi ye. Ah wull nae bear tae see yer dunderheided, snowflake faces i’ my courtroom a minute longer. If ye want to tak’ yersel’s off to the Inner House, well ye kin gie them a chance tae roar at ye tae.