WITHIN the first hour of the proroguing case starting at the Supreme Court, one of the judges remarked: “Some of us are struggling here.”
That struggle was with paperwork – the volumes of court documents which appeared not to be easily available or marked the same for each of the 11 judges.
READ MORE: UK Government's QC refuses to be drawn on second prorogation
There was subsequently much rustling of paper as sheets were passed around the courtroom to try to make sure all had the correct copies.
The Supreme Court also registered huge traffic on its website for the live streaming of the case.
Its streaming service is usually accessed around 20,000 times per month, but yesterday morning alone it was accessed 4.4 million times. And, in the hour before the 1pm break for lunch, 2.8 million requests were logged.
Lady Hale said: “As usual, these proceedings are being live-streamed so that anybody who wishes to do so can watch the arguments as they unfold.This is a very important aspect of open justice and we hope that it will enable many people to understand what these appeals are all about and, just as importantly, what they are not about.”
Veteran broadcaster David Dimbleby spoke to people outside the court queueing to get in.
He said: “I lived through Suez, the miners’ strike, I lived through the poll tax debate and the trouble then. I lived through the Iraq demonstrations – I’ve never seen the country so divided as this.
“The next six weeks are clearly critical. I’ve never known the country so seriously riven by argument.”
Dimbleby said the case was “not just dramatic – it’s really, really important for all our futures”. He added: “The Prime Minister is accused of lying to the Queen – let’s put it bluntly – and getting Parliament suspended without good reason and that’s big potatoes, it has to be.”
A man dressed as Robocop who stood outside the court all morning, said Boris Johnson’s actions could set a “dangerous” precedent.
Charlie Rome, 35, said: “Robocop, he stood for the rule of law in a kind of dystopian future where there was corruption rife across the police and the corporations. The evidence suggests that Parliament was prorogued to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on this particular issue – today it’s a No-Deal Brexit, tomorrow it could be bringing back the death penalty, then who knows?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here