5. Barrister and legal commentator, Jeremy Brier, using his mobile phone
6. The Supreme Court sign
7. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Brier, barrister and legal commentator:
"So today the Supreme Court is hearing two appeals. It's hearing an appeal from the English High Court where they said prorogation and the question of suspension of parliament is not a justiciable matter, it's not for us, they're hearing an appeal from that. They're also hearing an appeal from the Scottish inner house which actually said the opposite - it said it is a matter for us and it was unlawful. So two different results that the Supreme Court has to consider on appeal and try and bring those cases together in one unified verdict."
8. Close of Jeremy Brier's hands
9. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Brier, barrister and legal commentator:
"Today's a hugely significant day in this day two of the Supreme Court hearing. We heard yesterday from Gina Miller's barrister Lord Pannick saying why prorogation, the suspension of parliament, was unlawful, that it thwarted parliamentary sovereignty. Today we hear from the government's QC Sir James Eadie. He's going to really be saying, this is not a question that the courts should be involved in, it's a non-justiciable matter. It's a matter of politics and there isn't a threshold, a measuring stick by which a court can sensibly get involved and work out what's legal and what's lawful."
The Supreme Court in London on Wednesday began hearing its second day of legal debate over whether prime minister Boris Johnson acted lawfully by suspending - or proroguing - parliament.
Judges must determine if Johnson overstepped his authority by suspending Parliament for a five-week period during the run-up to the 31 October deadline for Britain to leave the European Union.
The government's opponents argued that Johnson illegally shut down Parliament just weeks before the country was due to leave the 28-nation bloc for the "improper purpose" of dodging lawmakers' legitimate scrutiny of his Brexit plans.
They also accused Johnson of misleading Queen Elizabeth II, whose formal approval was needed to suspend the legislature.
The government claims the suspension was routine, not related to Brexit, and was a matter for politicians rather than the court.
The judges will rule on two appeals - one by transparency campaigner Gina Miller' and one by the government challenging a Scottish court ruling against prorogation, or suspension.