Opposing groups of campaigners gathered outside the UK Supreme Court in London on Monday as judges started hearing the government's appeal against a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's European Union exit negotiations can begin.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

Those powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - allow the government to join or leave international treaties without consulting lawmakers.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the 28-nation bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

Last month, three High Court judges agreed - but the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

The case has raised a constitutional quandary and inflamed the country's heated debate about Brexit.

November's ruling infuriated pro-Brexit campaigners, who saw the lawsuit as an attempt to block or delay Britain's EU exit.

Miller says she has received abuse and death threats.

She arrived at court Monday with her lawyers, greeted by cheers from pro-EU campaigners dressed as judges atop an open-topped double-decker bus.

A banner on the side read "In democracy, Leave hypocrisy."

"Nigel, where are you?" they sang mockingly, in reference to former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, a prominent voice in the leave campaign.

He had promised to lead a march on the Supreme Court to demand judges respect the will of the majority.

It was cancelled last week after organisers said there was a risk it could be hijacked by far-right extremists.

Two anti-EU protesters held placards, one calling the case an "establishment stitch-up."

Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote.

London - 5 December 2016

1. Exterior of UK Supreme Court

2. Close up of European Union flag

3. Police entering Supreme Court

4. Wide of pro-Remain protesters from Britain for Europe singing as they arrive in open-topped London bus UPSOUND (English) "Nigel, where are you?"

5. Various of protesters outside court building, holding EU and UK flags

6. SOUNDBITE (English) David Gullant, Protester from Surrey branch of Britain for Europe:

"I am a British citizen, but I want to make sure that the UK due process is followed. So this is not about Brexit pros and cons, it's about making sure that if you have an Act of Parliament, only Parliament can change that Act of Parliament. It is not up to the prime minister to overturn it, it has got to go through due process."

7. Pro-Brexit protester Julia Waller

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Julia Waller, pro Brexit protester

"Well, I hope that the government, I hope Theresa May's hand, is strengthened. We've got to give her some credit - she can't expose her hand to Europe. Europe doesn't have our best interests at heart anyway, and I think we want to be free, and when people voted they didn't just vote for a soft Brexit or a grey Brexit, those words didn't exist then. We just voted for Brexit. We want to get out - end of (discussion)."

9. Pan from pro-Europe protesters to Supreme Court

As UK's Prime Minister Theresa May wants to start Britain's divorce from the European Union (EU), eleven judges may stand in her way.

On Monday, May's government will ask the justices of the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's exit negotiations can begin, a case that has raised a constitutional quandary and inflamed the country's heated debate about Brexit.

May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March 2017 by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

The powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a vote of Parliament.

A hairdresser and a financial entrepreneur, Deir Dos Santos and Gina Miller, went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

Last month, three High Court judges agreed, but the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

Government lawyers led by Attorney General Jeremy Wright will argue this week that the British people have spoken by voting in a June 23 referendum to leave the EU.

In written arguments published before Monday's hearing, government lawyers say the use of royal prerogative to start the talks is "constitutionally appropriate and lawful."

Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote, but the government was left with little choice than to proceed with the case anyway.

"It's politically problematic, I think, to be seen to not pursue all legal avenues to obstruct this attempt to, in the eyes of some critics, derail the Brexit process," says Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London.

In a reflection of the constitutional importance of the case - which hinges on the balance of power between Parliament and the executive - all 11 Supreme Court judges will hear the appeal, the first time the full court has sat since it was founded in 2009.

The case is scheduled to last four days, with a ruling likely in January.

Complicating the picture are new participants including the Scottish government, which argues the Edinburgh-based Scottish Parliament should get a vote, too.

Britons voted by 52 to 48 percent on June 23 to leave the EU, but voters in Scotland strongly backed staying in, and the Scottish government says they should not be dragged out of the EU against their will.

London - 1 December 2016

1. Exterior of UK Supreme Court building, traffic on street

2. Close of symbol reading (English): "The Supreme Court"

3. Various exteriors of Supreme Court building

4. Various of Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London, looking at book

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"Well, I think that there are two reasons probably (why the government appealed the High Court ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before negotiations of Britain's exit from the European Union can begin). The first is that it was very confident that it would win at the beginning, and I think it's reluctant to move from that position of confidence. And secondly, it's politically problematic, I think, to be seen to not pursue all legal avenues to obstruct this attempt to, in the eyes of some critics, derail the Brexit process."

6. Cutaway of King

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"The reaction in some of the media (to the government's loss in the High Court), in particular in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express was, I would say, outrageous. It has been common to criticise judges in the past and I think criticism of judges is perfectly acceptable - they are public officials after all, but this type of language, 'Enemies of the people' (Daily Mail headline the day after the ruling) reminded me of the kinds of things we saw in Nazi Germany."

8. Cutaway of King

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"This is quintessentially a role for judges to play. It's an unclear legal position. The devolved governments don't agree, many members of parliament don't agree. There needs to be an authoritative ruling on what the role of these statutes is in the Brexit process, and that can only be given by a court."

10. Cutaway of King

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"I think that a government loss at the Supreme Court would not derail the Brexit process, but I also think it would be more than a mere speed bump because having to bring forward legislation to give notice would mean that there would be a participation of a much broader range of voices, both in Parliament and in the devolved legislatures and among the devolved governments. And when these voices are heard there is a political obligation of sorts to respond to these voices, to take them into account, to not proceed in a way that ignores them altogether, and I think that will make a difference to the outcome of the Brexit process, but I don't think it will stop it."

12. Cutaway of King

13. Pan of books

14. Various exteriors of Houses of Parliament

Britain's government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to trigger exit negotiations by the end of March.

The 8-3 ruling from the judges forces the government to put a bill before Parliament, giving pro-EU politicians a chance to soften the terms of Brexit - Britain's exit from the EU.

"Leave" campaigners had objected, saying Parliament shouldn't have the power to overrule the electorate, which voted to leave the bloc in a June 23 referendum.

The Supreme Court's decision doesn't mean that Britain will remain in the EU - but it could delay the process.

Still, May's Brexit secretary, David Davis, told the House of Commons on Tuesday that the government timetable remained on track, and that officials would introduce a bill within days.

"They (parliament) need to be involved before we leave," said Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who helped fund Article 50 legal challenge.

May had argued the referendum gave her a mandate to take Britain out of the EU and that discussing the details of her strategy with Parliament would weaken the government's negotiating position.

UKIP leader Paul Nuttall said the result was what he expected, saying "I think we've lost the battle today and I'm disappointed but not surprised, but we will win the war."

London - 24 January 2017

1. Pan down UK Supreme Court entrance

2. Police outside

3. Top shot media and entrance

4. Set up of Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers

5. Close up Mullins' tie

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers, helped fund Article 50 legal challenge:

"Well I think it was all unnecessary. If she would have got parliament involved, rather than you know, saying that she's gonna get on with it, then she was saying, 'oh, they can vote on this once she's negotiated a deal' - well that's all too late then. Once she's negotiated a deal, once we've left the EU and we're offered the deal we've got, there is no point in parliament getting involved. They need to be involved before we leave. And now I think they can put enough pressure on to her to make sure we get a soft Brexit."

7. Pan down Supreme Court

8. Various pro-EU demonstrators

9. Various exteriors of UK parliament

10. Various cutaways of Paul Nuttall, UK Independence Party leader

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Paul Nuttall, UKIP leader:

"I think it's what we expected, I think we've lost the battle today and I'm disappointed but not surprised, but we will win the war. And now these guys behind me in the House of Commons and the House of Lords have a duty to enact the will of the people and I want to make it clear what that will is. People voted on mass on June 23rd to leave the European Union. They also voted the leave the single market. The Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary of the day, Philip Hammond, they all made it clear, leaving the EU means leaving the single market. The British people went out and did that by a score of 52 percent. So leaving must mean leaving."

12. Mid of Parliament

13. Various set ups Andrew Blick, Director History and Policy organisation and Lecturer King's College London

14. SOUNDBITE (English) Andrew Blick, Director History and Policy and Lecturer King's College London:

"The courts upholding that principal is a very important constitutional moment that no doubt will appear in all the textbooks for years to come. No question about the constitutional significance. The political significance is a bit more complicated. What political difference will it really make? It seems unlikely that the Commons, the House of Commons, the elected chamber of parliament, would want to be seen to be blocking Brexit, to be seen to be resisting the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. That seems very unlikely. There is perhaps an outside chance that the House of Lords, the unelected chamber, might offer some kind of resistance to the bill."

15. Cutaway

16. SOUNDBITE (English) Andrew Blick, Director History and Policy and Lecturer King's College London:

"I think that timetable (set out by British Prime Minister Theresa May) still looks very plausible, but the consequence of this judgment today is that the matter is slightly out of her (May) hands in that now she has to get statutory authorisation, she has to take a bill through parliament, she has to follow through those parliamentary procedures. It can be done quickly but it does require both Houses of Parliament to agree to it if she wants it happen quickly, so there is a slight variable in there, that wasn't in there before."

17. Various exteriors of Parliament

Small groups of protesters held rival demonstrations on Monday as judges inside the Supreme Court in London were hearing arguments as to whether the government had the right to leave Europe without parliamentary approval.

Britain's Supreme Court began hearing a landmark case on Monday that will decide who has the power to trigger the UK's exit from the European Union - the government or Parliament.

The legal battle has major constitutional implications for the balance of power between the legislature and the executive, and has inflamed Britain's already raw wound over how and whether to leave the EU.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty by the end of March, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

The powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

London - 5 December 2016

1. Pro-Europe demonstration in front of Supreme Court

2. Tilt down of sign reading (English): "Stop Brexit fight racism and the scapegoating of immigrants. Defend freedom of movement."

3. Various of pro-Europe protesters chanting, holding banners

4. Pan from police to protesters in front of Supreme Court

5. Rival protest groups in front of Supreme Court, police officers at scene

6. Pro-Europe protesters shouting (English): "Brexit is racist, stop Brexit now!"

7. Smart phone screen showing protesters

8. Rival protesters discussing

9. Pro-Brexit protesters, woman waving Union flag

10. Man being led away by police

11. Policewoman

12. Supreme Court and protesters

A law analyst has said Britain's Supreme Court could request a Brexit extension on behalf of the government, if Prime Minister Boris Johnson doesn't abide by a law to seek a three-month delay.

Last week, members of parliament voted in favour of the government asking the European Union for the delay if no agreement is reached before October 31.

The law was rushed through Parliament before its suspension for five weeks.

The country's Supreme Court is set to decide on Tuesday whether the suspension, which was ordered by Johnson, is legal, after Scotland's highest civil court ruled the prorogation unlawful.

Steven Peers, professor of law at Essex University told the Associated Press that the Court is likely to support the government's Brexit plans "with some limits."

On Monday, Johnson will meet European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker for the first time in an attempt to renegotiate a Brexit deal.

London - 16 September 2019

1. Various exteriors of British Parliament

2. Setup of Steven Peers, professor of law at Essex University:

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Steven Peers, professor of law at Essex University:

"Well what we've seen for the last six weeks or so is that the government, so Mr (British Prime Minister, Boris) Johnson, keeps saying that he thinks he's likely to get a deal and that they're moving towards a deal. But the signs from the EU, more or less seems, most of them to say that we're not moving much towards a deal. So, unless that somehow radically changes that's what I'd expect to sort of come out from today. Although everyone sort of jumps on what other people says and will take one word or one sentence out of what Mr (European Commission President, Jean-Claude) Juncker says and maybe the next five sentences, in order to say that he thinks we're about to do a deal. But you never know it's always possible that there's been work behind the scenes that we don't all know about that is moving us towards a deal. I wouldn't absolutely rule it out."

4. Cutaway of Peers' hands

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Steven Peers, professor of law at Essex University:

"Well I think lawyers tend to be conservative and the conservative approach, with a "small c," would be to say well let's not upset the traditional rule that governments can choose to suspend Parliament when they like. But then, the counter argument is that the government's doing more than usually suspending Parliament for just a few days here or there, it's doing it at a crucial period to stop Parliament challenging it over Brexit. The reasons it's given don't really hold up to close scrutiny. According to many people who adhere to the press it might just prorogue (suspend) Parliament again if it can. So, those are the concerns that the counter arguments have and maybe the judges will take them into account."

6. Cutaway of Peers

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Steven Peers, professor of law at Essex University:

"Well no one can predict anything. I mean the Supreme Court may or may not rule against the government. Labour MPs (Members of Parliament), may or may not. The DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) may or may not switch in sufficient numbers to pass a deal, they may or may not be successful in a deal. I mean, I think the more likely scenario is the Supreme Court supports the government with some limits, on maybe what it can do in the future and the government doesn't get a deal or doesn't get it passed. So we move into a scenario, of whether it's really going to ask for an extension as the law requires it to do, to ask for an extension of EU membership. I mean, I don't think anyone should be certain about their predictions."

8. Various exteriors of Parliament

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Steven Peers, professor of law at Essex University:

"Well, there are people who've already gone to court to try and get the law enforced, which perhaps might mean the court itself delivering a notice to the EU on behalf of the government that is requesting an extension. It might mean civil servants are ordered to act on behalf of the government, in order to request an extension or you could try and enforce the law directly against Boris Johnson – if he refuses that's contempt of court, which could mean jail time. But I think that's kind of drastic, the courts are more likely to try and find a way to do it without locking anyone up."

10. Various exteriors of Parliament

11. Pan-left from London Bridge to Parliament

Campaigners representing the rights of UK citizens living and working in the European Union said they were "delighted and relieved" by Tuesday's ruling at the Supreme Court on the process of leaving the EU.

Britain's government must get parliamentary approval before starting the Brexit process, the court ruled, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to trigger negotiations by the end of March.

John Shaw, spokesperson for campaign group Fair Deal for Expats, said "proper parliamentary scrutiny now offers the best chance for our circumstances to be considered in the lead up to the Brexit negotiations".

He also urged the government not to use the EU expatriate community as "bargaining chips" but to ensure "hard guarantees are put in place about what the future holds for such a large number of ordinary people"

UK POOL

London - 24 January 2017

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK FRAMES++

++AUDIO AS INCOMING++

1. SOUNDBITE (English) John Shaw, Fair Deal for Expats campaign group spokesperson:

"We are delighted and relieved by the decision of the Supreme Court today. There can now be proper control by the MPs the British people elect over the process of the UK leaving the EU. Together with 3 million nationals of other European countries who live here, we are the people who are most profoundly affected by all of this. Everything people in Britain take for granted in their daily lives rests for us on our being EU citizens."

++BLACK FRAMES++

2. SOUNDBITE (English) John Shaw, Fair Deal for Expats campaign group spokesperson:

"Proper parliamentary scrutiny now offers the best chance for our circumstances to be considered in the lead up to the Brexit negotiations. This is the human side of Brexit. We would urge the government not to use us as bargaining chips. We will be calling on the government and the European Commission to ensure hard guarantees are put in place about what the future holds for such a large number of ordinary people. We ask that governments across the EU do the same."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

The lead plaintiff in the British Supreme Court case said on Tuesday that she was happy with the ruling because it provides the legal foundation to trigger Brexit.

Gina Miller spoke shortly after the Supreme Court announced in a majority 8-3 decision that the government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union.

Miller also said that the case was about the legal process, not politics.

British Attorney General Jeremy Wright said that the government will comply with the ruling, and that a statement will be made in Parliament later.

The court also unanimously decided that there's no need to consult Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland on Brexit.

Tuesday's ruling raises hopes among pro-EU politicians that they will be able soften the terms of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the bloc.

British Prime Minister Theresa May wanted to use centuries-old powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty and launch two years of exit talks.

++AUDIO QUALITY AS INCOMING++

UK POOL

London - 24 January 2017

1. Lead plaintiff Gina Miller exiting court

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Gina Miller, Lead plaintiff: ++AUDIO AS INCOMING++

"Good morning, today eight of the 11 supreme judges upheld the judgment handed down by the High Court in November, in a case that went to the very heart of our Constitution and how we are governed. Only parliament can grant rights to the people and only parliament can take them away. No prime minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. Parliament alone is sovereign. This ruling today means that MPs we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the government select the best course in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations, negotiations that will frame our place in the world and all our destinies to come."

++BLACK FRAMES++

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Gina Miller, Lead plaintiff:

"There is no doubt that Brexit is the most divisive issue of a generation, but this case was about the legal process, not politics. Today's decision has created legal certainty based on our democratic process and provides the legal foundations for the government to trigger Article 50."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

There was a mixed reception on the streets of London on Friday a day after the high court ruled that that the British government needs Parliament's approval before formally triggering talks on leaving the EU.

Many of those who voted to 'Remain' welcomed the development, but others saw it as an attempt to block the Brexit process.

Thursday's High Court ruling that the government needs Parliament's approval before invoking Article 50 of the EU treaty, which formally begins a two-year countdown to Britain's exit.

The government is appealing against the ruling at the Supreme Court with a hearing expected next month.

If the country's highest court rules against the government, Parliament will become directly involved in discussions over how the Brexit process begins.

London – 4 November 2016

1. Street in Camden

2. Union flag umbrellas in store

3. Various of people in street holding umbrellas

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Amy Birmbaum, UK/US dual national, artist living in London:

"Yes, definitely correct to intervene. Because this is a democracy and you have different organs of government and the whole process was very hastily set up, very shabbily organised, and people were lied to, so they voted for something they didn't mean to vote for. So now, you have to have another organ of government...checks and balances. You can hear I'm American. We need some checks and balances over there too."

5. SOUDBITE (English) Amanda Malposs, London resident, retired:

"My husband and I went to live in Paris when we were very young because we believed in Europe. And we're absolutely shocked. We feel that idea has been betrayed, so I'm quite disgusted."

6. Various of street scenes

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Patrick Staunton, UK resident, librarian:

"I'm very worried about what's happening, but again, the reason why people voted leave was they saw that it is undemocratic, the EU is undemocratic. Now, what the remainers are trying to do is to use political decisions by judges, decisions by the House of Lords, to block it. They're playing into their hands. They're showing us it's undemocratic."

7. Various of street scenes

A law professor said an appeal of the High Court ruling stating that the British prime minister can't trigger the UK's exit from the European Union without parliamentary approval was unlikely to succeed.

Jeff King, of University College London, said Thursday's comprehensive ruling on an expansive set of grounds could cause the government's argument to fail.

But King cautioned that those hoping for a reversal of the referendum result would likely be disappointed.

London - 3 November 2016

1. Various set up shots of Professor of Law Jeff King, University College London

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"It was very clear, there are many points that rather than just the courts saying that we don't need to rule on this point, the court rather said that we think that point is completely untenable, in some cases suggesting that an argument was divorced from reality. So a court that was very divided on this question might well have given a much slimmer narrower ruling based on very few grounds instead of an expansive set of grounds, dealing with only a few crucial points instead of dealing with many more subtle points, but it chose the latter route. In so it gave a comprehensive ruling on many points, many of which could cause the government's argument to fail. And that gives me confidence that an appeal would be unlikely to succeed under the circumstances."

3. Cutaway of King

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"It may feel that legally there are arguments that it wishes either to make again or to bring new arguments to the attention of the Supreme Court. It may feel that the political consequences of not pursuing the appeal could be problematic, it might be accused of not having followed up every available avenue. These type of accusations are already being made about the pleadings of the government in this very case. So for those reasons, it may have good political and legal reasons to appeal. My sense is that the appeal would be unlikely to be successful. I think that Supreme Court would have even more confidence to be as unequivocal as this court has been."

5. Various of King

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"If that 48 percent (those supporting remain) is hoping this legal challenge will stop Brexit, I think they will be disappointed. I think whether Brexit goes ahead will be a function of where Parliament takes this issue from here. And that's exactly what all the judges in the case were taking pains to point out.''

7. Cutaway of King

The woman who led the legal battle against the British government's ability to push forward with Brexit has reacted to a high court decision in her favour.

Britain's High Court ruled on Thursday that the prime minister cannot trigger the UK's exit from the European Union without approval from Parliament

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller, who supported the campaign to stay in the European Union, brought the case.

She argued that leaving the EU would deny her fundamental rights, such as the right to free movement and freedom of services across Europe.

The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation.

It centres on whether Prime Minister Theresa May can start negotiating Britain's exit from the EU without a vote in the House of Commons.

At the core of the matter is the balance of power between Parliament and the government.

Regardless of the victor, the case will likely be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.

May has said she will invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty - triggering two years of official exit talks - by March 31.

London - 3 November 2016

1. Gina Miller exiting High Court

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Gina Miller, financial entrepreneur who led legal Brexit battle:

"A few words: the result today is about all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures. It's not about how anyone voted. Every one of us voted for the best country and the best future. This case was about process, not politics. My dedicated team at Mishcon (legal team), and counsel and I are absolutely delighted that we've been able to be part of this debate, and to bring some sobriety as we go forwards. The judgement, I hope, when it's read by the government - and they contemplate the full judgement - that they will make the wise decision of not appealing, but pressing forwards and having a proper debate in our sovereign parliament, our mother of parliaments that we are so admired for around the world. Thank you."

Britain's government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The decision potentially delays Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to trigger exit negotiations by the end of March.

London - 24 January 2017

1. Various of Parliament

2. Evening Standard newspaper vendor talking to security officer

3. Close of Evening Standard newspaper, reading (English) "Judges' blow to May over Brexit."

4. Vendor and security officer talking

5. Close of newspaper lead, reading (English) "PM can't trigger Article 50 without Parliament backing, says supreme court in historic ruling."

The four day hearing about who has the power to trigger the EU exit - lawmakers or the government- wrapped up in London on Thursday.

The Supreme Court has been asked to rule on a major constitutional issue: Does the power to take Britain out of the EU rest with the executive - May's government - or with Parliament?

The government argued it can use powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, the formal trigger for exit talks from the 28-nation bloc.

Speaking after the conclusion of the proceedings Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, said there has been a "clear expectation that the outcome of the referendum would be honoured - inside and outside Parliament, before, during and after the referendum campaign".

Lawyers challenging the government say leaving the EU will change Britain's laws and remove citizens' rights, including free movement within the bloc - and that can't be done without legislation in Parliament.

Gina Miller, the lead claimant, said the process has been "emotionally and physically, mentally quite draining" but as the days have gone on she has realised the enormity of the case.

The immediate future of the Brexit process now rests in the hands of the 11 Supreme Court justices, with a decision expected in January.

UK POOL

London - 8 December 2016

++NIGHT SHOTS++

1. Lawyers bowing as judges exit at the end of the hearing

2. Various of people leaving court

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Wright QC, UK Attorney General:

"There has been a clear expectation that the outcome of the referendum would be honoured - that's inside and outside Parliament, it's before, during and after the referendum campaign. Members of Parliament voted overwhelmingly to have this referendum and as you know, as recently as yesterday evening, Parliament's been continuing to have a say about this."

++BLACK FRAMES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Wright QC, UK Attorney General:

"Look, we don't decide which cases are brought. The claimants bring their case, as they did. When we believe, as we did, that judges weren't right in the judgement they reached in the divisional court then the right thing is to appeal that judgement. That's what we've done and we now wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter."

5. Various of Gina Miller, the lead claimant, leaving court

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Gina Miller, lead claimant:

"It's been, the bank of cameras and coming in, the whole thing has been quite emotionally and physically, mentally quite draining. I almost feel as though I'm back into first year law college listening to lectures but one after the other after the other. And then there is the enormity of the fact that I'm sitting in the Supreme Court hearing my name being mentioned and referred to as the Miller case, it's all quite unusual to take it, you know it's just not normal sort of every day. But what's also important as the days have gone on, is to realise the enormity of the case."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has welcomed Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling that UK parliament should be consulted before the government triggers Article 50 to leave the European Union.

The Labour party leader said he would not block the government's plan to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, saying "it doesn't mean we abdicate the field, it means we then hold the government to account".

UK POOL

London - 24 January 2017

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"We will support Article 50 being triggered, we have made that very, very clear. That is the result of the referendum and we have to respect that. It doesn't mean we abdicate the field, it means we have to hold the government to account on the issues of trade, the issues of rights and the issues of the long-term direction in which this country wants to go. Because the strange thing about the Prime Minister's speech was this implied threat that if Europe doesn't do what she wants, then she's going to turn us into some Singapore-style economy on the shores of Europe. Well, that is not what people voted for, people voted for leaving the European Union, they didn't vote to vote themselves out of work."

++BLACK++

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"I think it's quite appalling that the government has not produced a White Paper as a statement of what its intents are. All we have is a speech that the Prime Minister made at Lancaster House, we've got the court judgement this morning and we're going to have a statement apparently from David Davis (UK Brexit Secretary) a bit later on today in the House. Frankly, there should be a proper statement of what the government intends to do on this. We have been making the point ever since the referendum that parliament must be involved. We must be able to hold the government to account, that's what parliament exists for, to hold them to account to make sure that the negotiations actually are for the benefit of all the people of this country, however they voted in the referendum."

++BLACK++

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"I don't think it's good enough. We cannot say, okay, Article 50, you go off and negotiate and in two year's time you come back with a vote. That's not acceptable. We need to be informed, be able to challenge, be able to overturn if necessary, the objectives and direction in which the government is going on those negotiations. There is also going to be the Great Repeal Bill which will come up presumably during the coming summer. That's going to be an enormous piece of legislation because it is amending 40 years of UK parliamentary legislation, all of which at some point or the other usually refers to European regulations. But we're very clear; we're going to hold them to account. We're going to hold them to account to protect jobs, we're going to hold them to account to make sure British industry does have market access and we're not going to allow ourselves to become some kind of off-shore tax haven. That's not what people voted for."

++BLACK++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"Look every MP represents a constituency, every MP has people that voted either way in the referendum. Every MP represents a constituency and people are worried. They're worried about jobs, they're worried about services, they're worried about rights. There's a whole sense that we will succeed in uniting people around the objectives of the kind of decent, inclusive, caring society we want in Britain. We don't want to become a haven for funny money and dodgy tax avoiders."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

Britain's Supreme Court will rule on Tuesday on whether the prime minister or Parliament has the right to trigger the process of taking Britain out of the European Union.

The 11 justices will either uphold an earlier ruling giving Parliament a direct role in invoking Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty or reject that ruling in favour of the government's claim it can do so without a vote in Parliament.

Article 50, which has never been used before, starts the formal process of taking Britain out of the 28-nation EU.

The legal battle follows a successful High Court action led by businesswoman Gina Miller.

A reversal of the lower court ruling would give Prime Minister Theresa May the authority to start Article 50 negotiations when she chooses without input from Parliament.

She has said, however, that Parliament will be asked to approve any Brexit deal reached at the conclusion of the talks.

UK POOL

London - 24 January 2017

1. Lord Richard Keen QC, Advocate General for Scotland, (wearing red scarf) and Jeremy Wright UK Attorney General arriving at Supreme Court

2. Various of lead claimant Gina Miller arriving, posing for cameras

3. Various of more arrivals

4. Protester with banner being led away by police

5. Police arriving

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson has denied lying to Queen Elizabeth II when advising her to prorogue - or suspend -parliament for a five-week period.

"Absolutely not," Johnson said Thursday, while visiting a London dockyard to announce a new shipbuilding programme.

His comment came after a Scottish court dealt another blow to his Brexit plans Wednesday, ruling that his decision to suspend Parliament less than two months before the UK is due to leave the European Union was an unlawful attempt to avoid democratic scrutiny.

He stressed that the government will appeal the decision, adding that there is still "plenty of time" for lawmakers to debate the departure.

With Brexit due in 50 days, Johnson insists the country must leave the EU on October 31, with or without a divorce deal - but many lawmakers fear a no-deal would be economically devastating.

Johnson on Thursday said the government's assessment there could be food and medicine shortages, gridlock at ports and riots in the streets if there is a no-deal Brexit, was is a worst-case scenario, rather than something that was likely to happen.

He said the bleak scenario detailed in the government's no-deal contingency plan, code-named Operation Yellowhammer, was "not where we intend to end up."

"This is a worst-case scenario which civil servants obviously have to prepare for, but in the last few months, and particularly in the 50 days since I've been prime minister, we've been massively accelerating our preparations," Johnson said.

He insisted a departure deal with the EU was possible by October 31.

UK POOL

London - 12 September 2019

1. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson onboard ship, as UK announces shipbuilding expansion

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister (commenting on the government's contingency plan in the event of a no-deal Brexit, which was released to the public on Wednesday):

"Well it's very important to understand what this document is. This is a worst case scenario, which civil servants obviously have to prepare for. But in the last few months - and particularly in the 50 days since I've been Prime Minister - we've been massively accelerating our preparations. We're trying to get a deal. I'm very hopeful that we will get a deal with our European friends on October 17 or 18 or thereabouts. But if we have to come out (of the EU) on October 31 with no-deal, we will be ready. And the ports will be ready and the farming communities will be ready and all the industries that matter will be ready for a no-deal Brexit. And what you're looking at here is just the sensible preparations, the worst case scenario, that you'd expect any government to do. In reality, we will certainly be ready for a no-deal Brexit, if we have to do it, - and I stress again that's not where we intend to end up."

3. Wide of Johnson speaking to young sailors

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister:

"I think the British judiciary, the United Kingdom judiciary, is one of the glories of our constitution. They are independent. And believe me, around the world, people look at our judges with awe and admiration. So I'm not going to quarrel or criticise the judges. Clearly, there are two different legal views: the High Court in England had a very different opinion, and the Supreme Court will have to adjudicate in the course of the next few days. And I think it would be proper for politicians to let them get on and do that."

5. Close of Johnson speaking

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister:

Reporter: "Did you lie to the Queen whenyou advised her to prorogue, to suspend, parliament?"

Johnson: "Absolutely not. And indeed, as I say, the High Court in England plainly agrees with us. But the Supreme Court will have to decide. We need a Queen's Speech, we need to get on and do all sorts of things at a national level. We've got a fantastic... here we are, discussing shipbuilding. We're going to be launching five new (Royal Navy) Type-31 frigates. We're going to need bills on education, on health, on housing, on technology, on our vision for investing in science, the space programme, all the things that we want to do on environment, stopping the export of waste overseas and plastics. There are a huge number of things that we want to get on with and do. You can't do them (as things stand right now). We've been going on in this parliament now for longer than any time since the Civil War (in the 1600s). We need a Queen's Speech. We need to to get on with things. And Parliament will have time - both before and after - that crucial (EU) summit on October 17-18 to talk about the Brexit deal. I'm very hopeful that we will get a deal, as I say, at that crucial summit. We're working very hard, I've been around European capitals talking to our friends, I think we can see the rough area of a landing space of how you could do it. It will be tough. It will be hard. But I think we can get there. And the crucial thing is, if we can't get a deal, and I really hope we can, if we can't, then we will be ready to come out on October 31, deal or no-deal, and that's what this is all about."

7. Young sailors

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not advise the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks for any "improper purpose", Supreme Court justices have heard.

Barrister James Eadie, representing the Prime Minister, told the 11-strong panel that the suggestion the prorogation was intended to "stymie" Parliament ahead of Brexit was "untenable".

At the end of the second day of the hearing, there were jeers from pro-Brexit campaigners as transparency activist Gina Miller, who helped to bring the action, left the court building.

Legal expert Stefan Theil said it had been a good day for the government in court, but it was unclear which way the judges would lean when they make their ruling.

The court is hearing appeals on two separate challenges in the English and Scottish courts over the prorogation of Parliament.

The justices will continue to hear submissions on Thursday, the third and final day of the hearing, but it is not yet known when they will give a decision.

London - 18 September 2019

1. Gina Miller, transparency activist who is appealing against the High Court's decision that suspending parliament was not illegal, leaving court

2. Exterior of Supreme Court

3. Pro-Brexiteers shouting at Miller outside court

4. Various of pro-Brexiteers and supporters of Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister, holding banners, British flags

5. Various of anti-Brexit protestors who are against the suspension of parliament, holding placards, banners

6. Zoom in of Joanna Cherry, Scottish National Party lawmaker

7. Police standing outside the Supreme Court

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Joanna Cherry, Scottish National Party lawmaker:

"And what's clearly coming to light, what's really clearly been emphasised today is the lack of candour on the part of the British Government about the reasons for the prorogation. Earlier today QC James Eadie, their lawyer, was asked if he could clarify what the reasons for the prorogation were and he wasn't prepared to do that other than by referring to the documents that have been lodged in court. But, it's been repeatedly emphasised today that there's no witness statements from the government accompanying those documents."

9. Stefan Theil, legal expert at Oxford University, talking outside the Supreme Court

10. SOUNDBITE (English) Stefan Theil, Oxford University:

"So the main points for the government were obviously that this is not judiciable, that was the one that was really quite leant on heavily. Justiciability means 'is this a thing that a court should look in to?', in other words can and should the court deal with this case and look in to the lawfulness of the prorogation? For the applicants respectively, the main issue was well, this was unlawful, the Prime Minister misled the Queen when advising her to prorogue Parliament and is doing it for an improper purpose."

11. Exterior of Supreme Court

12. Stefan Theil, Oxford University:

"It is really hard to say. Whenever you feel like you get a sense of what the judges are thinking, they immediately ask a question that sort of turns that on its head. So it's really hard to say. They're keeping their cards really closely to their chest. It's difficult to say. I think the government had a pretty good day today, I would say that. But again, it's about the law, it's less about the symbolism and the theatrics, so we'll have to wait and see."

13. Lawyers coming out of court

14. People waving Union Jack flags, cameras set up outside the Supreme Court

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.

The case is expected to conclude Thursday.

London - 18 September 2019

1. Various of exteriors of the Supreme Court

2. Police standing outside the Supreme Court

3. Transparency activist Gina Miller

4. Exteriors of the Supreme Court

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."

10. Exteriors of the Supreme Court

11. Media standing outside the Supreme Court

UK Supreme Court judges were heading in for a third day of a four-day hearing as they considered whether government or Parliament has the power to lead the country out of the European Union.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to launch EU exit talks by the end of March using ancient powers known as royal prerogative, which enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Several claimants went to court to argue that leaving the EU would remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that such an action could not be taken without legislation in Parliament.

Last month the High Court agreed that the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, launching two years of exit negotiations, without lawmakers' support.

The government is challenging that decision at the country's top court - leaving the 11 justices to rule on the balance of power between the legislature and the executive.

CORRECTION - CLIENTS PLEASE NOTE THE MAN IN SHOT 1 IS ACTUALLY CLAIMANT CHARLIE MULLINS OF PIMLICO PLUMBERS, NOT HAIRDRESSER DEIR DOS SANTOS AS ORIGINALLY STATED

POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY

London - 7 December 2016

1. Various of entrepreneur Charlie Mullins of Pimlico Plumbers arriving at Supreme Court. Mullins, the boss of London-based Pimlico Plumbers is one of a group of business people helping to fund the court challenge

UK Supreme Court judges were heading in for a third day of a four-day hearing as they considered whether government or Parliament has the power to lead the country out of the European Union.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to launch EU exit talks by the end of March using ancient powers known as royal prerogative, which enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Several claimants went to court to argue that leaving the EU would remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that such an action could not be taken without legislation in Parliament.

Last month the High Court agreed that the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, launching two years of exit negotiations, without lawmakers' support.

The government is challenging that decision at the country's top court - leaving the 11 justices to rule on the balance of power between the legislature and the executive.

POOL

London - 7 December 2016

1. Lead claimant Gina Miller and team arriving at Supreme Court

2. Lord Richard Keen QC, Advocate General for Scotland, and Jeremy Wright UK Attorney General arriving

Proceedings began on Monday at the UK's highest court as the British government attempts to overturn a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's European Union exit negotiations can begin.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

The powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

Last month, three High Court judges agreed.

But the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

Government lawyers led by Attorney General Jeremy Wright will argue this week that the British people have spoken by voting in a June 23 referendum to leave the EU.

They say a parliamentary vote would mean getting lawmakers "to answer precisely the same question which was put by Parliament to the electorate and has been answered in the referendum."

Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote.

In a reflection of the constitutional importance of the case - which hinges on the balance of power between Parliament and the executive - all 11 Supreme Court judges will hear the appeal, the first time the full court has sat since it was founded in 2009.

The case is scheduled to last four days, with a ruling likely in January.

UK POOL

London - 5 December 2016

1. Zoom in from man waving European Union flag outside court building to flag

2. Attorney General for England and Wales Jeremy Wright arriving with his associates

3. Protest bus passing outside court, people on it chanting UPSOUND (English) "Nigel, where are you!"

4. Gina Miller, investment fund manager and philanthropist who was one of the team that won the High Court ruling, arriving with her associates, posing for photographers in front of court entrance