Nobody accused Johnson of lying last week when an English court found in his favour. I wonder why that judgement has had rather less publicity...
It had plenty of publicity. Perhaps you werenít paying attention.
However, Gina Millerís case was not that Johnson had lied but that prorogation was an abuse of power, The Scottish court concluded that Johnson had not told the queen his true reason for prorogation. Quite different. He isnít being accused, by the way. The Scottish Court of Session has concluded he DID lie.
As an aside, its interesting reading the English reaction to the Scottish court case. Most people seem to think that English law is UK law and the Scottish judgment is a bit of a side show.
Lots of people are saying that because the English court found against the appellants the Supreme Court will do the same. They even think itís an English court.
The truth is, Scots Law and English Law are equals. The UK Supreme Court, with Scottish and English judges on it must consider the Scottish verdict in line with Scots law.
What the English court decided is an irrelevance.
I haven't had time to get fully up to speed but I understand that the Scottish Judges were obliged to draw this conclusion because the UK Gov't didn't offer any evidence to the contrary or alternative explanatuion to the charge of lying laid before them.
Because they are Judges and NOT investigators, if there was NO evidence presented by the defence to the contrary they are obliged to judge that as the charges are uncontested the only conclusion they can draw is that they must be true.
It's not the same as them being factually true, just evidentially true.
It's why there will be an appeal, the Gov't will present it's side and the case will fail in the Supreme Court due to the impossibility of proving the lie.
This is how I understand it with what I've read.