This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49959167

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Judge dismisses no-deal Brexit challenge Judge dismisses no-deal Brexit challenge
(32 minutes later)
A Scottish judge has dismissed a move to force the Prime Minister Boris Johnson to seek to delay the UK's departure from the EU. A Scottish judge has dismissed a move to force Boris Johnson to comply with a law aimed at avoiding a no-deal Brexit.
Lord Pentland had been asked to consider the effects of the Benn Act. Campaigners had wanted to ensure that the prime minister would write to the EU to request an extension if no deal is in place by 19 October.
He said there "can be no doubt" that the prime minister, through his legal team, has agreed to abide by the law. They argued that statements made by the government showed that it could not be trusted.
But Lord Pentland said there "can be no doubt" that the prime minister had agreed to abide by the law.
As a result, he said there was no need for "coercive orders" against the UK government or against the prime minister.
And he said it would be "destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown" if Mr Johnson reneged on his assurances to the court.
The Scottish legal action was initiated by businessman Dale Vince, QC Jo Maugham and SNP MP Joanna Cherry.
They wanted the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, to rule on the extent to which Mr Johnson is bound by the so-called Benn Act.
The legislation was passed by MPs with the intention of preventing the UK leaving the European Union without a deal on 31 October.The legislation was passed by MPs with the intention of preventing the UK leaving the European Union without a deal on 31 October.
It requires the prime minister to send a letter to the EU formally requesting an extension to the Brexit timetable.It requires the prime minister to send a letter to the EU formally requesting an extension to the Brexit timetable.
Lord Pentland said the UK government had accepted had it must "comply fully" with the act and would not seek to "frustrate its purpose". Court orders 'not necessary'
As a result, he said there was no need for "coercive orders" against the UK government or against the prime minister. Lord Pentland said the UK government had accepted it must "comply fully" with the act and would not seek to "frustrate its purpose".
The petitioners had argued that a series of public statements by the prime minster indicated Mr Johnson was planning to break the law.The petitioners had argued that a series of public statements by the prime minster indicated Mr Johnson was planning to break the law.
However, the judge ruled that the UK government's public statements were an expression of its "political policy" and were "clearly not intended to be taken as conclusive statements of the government's understanding of its legal obligations".However, the judge ruled that the UK government's public statements were an expression of its "political policy" and were "clearly not intended to be taken as conclusive statements of the government's understanding of its legal obligations".
And he said it would be "destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown" if Mr Johnson reneged on his assurances to the court.
Lord Pentland said that as the prime minister and the government had given "unequivocal assurances" to comply with the 2019 Act, he was "not persuaded that it is necessary for the court to grant the orders sought or any variant of them".Lord Pentland said that as the prime minister and the government had given "unequivocal assurances" to comply with the 2019 Act, he was "not persuaded that it is necessary for the court to grant the orders sought or any variant of them".
One of the petitioners, Jo Maugham QC, said the decision would be appealed.One of the petitioners, Jo Maugham QC, said the decision would be appealed.
Shortly after the ruling was publicly released, he tweeted: "There are now risks of an unlawful Brexit that would not, had the decision gone the other way, have existed." He said the ruling has left Mr Johnson with "wriggle room".
He added his thanks to Lord Pentland for engaging "fairly and bravely with some really quite difficult questions about, at their heart, the state of the nations we both live in". "I very much hope the court is right and that the government will - as the government has promised to do - abide by the law," Mr Maugham said.
"I hope history proves the optimists, like him, right," he said. "But there is very real doubt in my mind that the government will act in accordance with the law and so tomorrow we will pursue our appeal against the decision of the Outer House to the Inner House of the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court."
Timeline: What's happened with the EU letter case?