Image source, UK Supreme Court

Lord Pannick sets out the essence of his first point in his and Gina Miller's case. A reminder - they are appealing the High Court ruling that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful.

Lawyer Lord Pannick says: "We submit that on all the material, the court should conclude that, but for the prime minister's wish to avoid parliamentary control, he would not have recommended to Her Majesty a prorogation for a period as long as five weeks.

"But he would have recommended a substantially shorter period in order to allow for a Queen's Speech... as had occurred on every occasion in the last 40 years."

Lord Pannick says it's up to the PM to satisfy the court that that was not his motive - but he can't do that because he hasn't given a statement.

A reminder that as well as following coverage of the Supreme Court proceedings on this live page, you can also watch the BBC News channel via this link.

Image source, UK Supreme Court

Lord Pannick, acting for Ms Miller, speaks more about the fact that Boris Johnson did not make a witness statement explaining why he decided to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament.

He tells the 11 justices that the case "cries out for an answer in a witness statement to the allegation that was made against the prime minister".

"In the absence of such a witness statement... we say the court should infer that there is no answer," he adds.

Image source, Getty Images

The highest court in the UK is hearing two appeals over Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks during the run-up to Brexit. The hearings are expected to last until Thursday.

The government is appealing against a ruling by Scotland’s highest civil court, which said the suspension was unlawful.

And businesswoman Gina Miller is challenging a judgement by the High Court in London that the suspension was not a matter for the courts.

Proceedings began this morning with Lord Pannick QC, on behalf of Ms Miller.

The five-week suspension of Parliament began a week ago. New governments normally prorogue Parliament for a short period, but the length and timing is controversial.

Mr Johnson says he will "wait and see what the judges say" before deciding whether to recall Parliament.

Image source, PA Media

"Some of us are struggling here," says one of the judges, as it appears the court documents are not easily available or marked the same for each of the 11 justices.

Some papers are passed around the courtroom as they try and get the correct copies.

Dominic Casciani
Home Affairs Correspondent

It’s emerged this morning at the Supreme Court hearing that the prime minister – for unknown reasons – has not prepared a witness statement explaining to the highest court in the UK why he advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, despite his actions being the central issue in this momentum constitutional case.

The absence of clear explanation of the prime minister’s thinking, says Lord Pannick, raises more questions than it answers.

Last week the PM, in a BBC interview, said he had not lied to the Queen.

That denial has therefore not been repeated under oath in a witness statement.

Lord Pannick dryly notes that anyone who produces a witness statement which does not tell the truth is committing an offence.

Image source, UK Supreme Court

"There is evidence in the form of statements by the prime minister himself which shows that the prime minister regards Parliament at least as a potential threat to the implementation of his policies," says Lord Pannick, acting for Ms Miller against the government.

He cites a Sky News interview with the prime minister, and the judges are shown a transcript.

It includes comments from Boris Johnson, who told the broadcaster: "I am afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of our minds that Brexit could be stopped, that the UK could be kept in by Parliament, the less likely they are to give us the deal I need."

Lord Pannick also cites a BBC report, when Mr Johnson said: "The best way to leave with a deal is if our friends and partners over the Channel don't think Brexit can be somehow blocked by Parliament."

There is a brief break in proceedings as the judges try to find a document Lord Pannick is referring to in their files.

Lady Hale apologises to Ms Miller's QC, before the the situation is remedied.

Victoria Derbyshire

Jessica Simor QC, a pro-Remain barrister at Matrix Chambers, tells Victoria Derbyshire the "key point that Lord Pannick is making is that every executive or governmental decision must be exercised for a proper purpose".

She adds: "And that what has happened here is that by proroguing for five weeks rather than five days - in the context where there's only seven weeks, at the time, left for Brexit - what the PM was really trying to do was to stop Parliament scrutinising the government.

"That he argues is impermissible and unconstitutional."

Dominic Casciani
Home Affairs Correspondent

Lord Pannick says the length of the prorogation is "relevant".

"The exceptional length is strong evidence that the prime minister's motive was to silence Parliament because he sees Parliament as an obstacle."

Lord Pannick continues by telling Lady Hale and the 10 other justices that they have a "common law duty" to intervene if the PM has used his power improperly.

"The issues in these proceedings are very far from academic," says Lord Pannick, who is trying to overturn the High Court's ruling that the Parliament suspension is lawful.

During these five weeks of being suspended, Parliament "may want to keep a close eye on the negotiations, if any, with other member states".

He adds: "Parliament may wish to keep a close eye on planning for a no-deal exit."

Dominic Casciani
Home Affairs Correspondent

Lord Pannick QC for Ms Miller says the High Court was wrong in its decision that prorogation was a purely political question.

The court is being asked to answer the legal question: is it within the scope of the PM's power for him to close Parliament [to prevent debate].

Image source, UK Supreme Court

Lord Pannick, who is acting for Ms Miller, says: "The length of the prorogation in this case is important, but it is important not because a prorogation may only be for one week or three weeks.That is not our case

"The length is relevant because the exceptional length in this case is strong evidence that the prime minister's motive was to silence Parliament for that period because he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the furtherance of his political aims."

Lord Pannick, acting for Ms Miller, says they believe "the divisional court was wrong to conclude that the issues in this case are non-justiciable".

He is referring to the High Court's ruling that the matter was not for the courts. (Read more about that here).

"Identifying whether a power has been used for a valid purpose is a legal question, it is not a political question," Lord Pannick tells the judges.

"It's a question for the courts, and the rule of law so demands."

Dominic Casciani
Home Affairs Correspondent

Justice Lady Hale begins proceedings by making a statement about the nature of the case.

"This is a serious and difficult question of law - demonstrated by the fact that three senior judges in Scotland have reached a different conclusion to three senior judges in England," she says.

She adds the Supreme Court exists to resolve these issues. We are not concerned about the wider political questions. The determination of this question will not determine Brexit.

She also welcomes people outside the court to watch live online because it is "a very important part of open justice".

Lord Pannick QC, acting on behalf of Gina Miller, says their side believes the prime minister advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament "because the prime minister wished to avoid what he saw was the risk that Parliament, during that period, would take action to frustrate or damage the policies of government".

Image source, UK Supreme Court

Day one of the Supreme Court hearing has begun.

The 11 judges will first look at the appeal from Gina Miller. She wants to overturn the High Court's ruling, which found the suspension of Parliament was lawful.

Lady Hale opens proceedings by explaining what lies ahead and thanking the court staff for their work in preparing the hearing.

Ms Miller's lawyer, Lord Pannick, is due to put forward the case from now until 13.30 BST.

Image source, UK Supreme Court

The 11 judges - eight men and three women - have arrived in court for day one of the court hearing.

It is rare for 11 to sit, and is only the second time it has happened in its 10-year history.

SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish challenge, has arrived at the Supreme Court.

Image source, Reuters

Image source, AFP