Hello and welcome to you at The Spectator podcast. I'm Lara Prendergast.

As the Supreme Court wraps up its trial looking into the prerogation of Parliament, we ask, are the courts overreaching?

We also discussed the prevalence of mental illness amongst the homeless.

And finally, Mary Killen tells us why she's no longer a remainer.

This week sees the end of an extraordinary Supreme Court trial.

A former Prime Minister made a damning statement against our current Prime Minister.

Meanwhile, allies of the government have questioned the impartiality of the judiciary.

It's all getting a bit political. So, what should the role of the judiciary be in a democracy?

And are our courts over mighty? Richard Eakins, head of the Judicial Power Project at Policy Exchange,

raises these questions in this week's cover article,

and he joins us down the line from Oxford.

I'm also joined by Jack Simpson-Ked, a constitutional law expert from the Bingham Centre.

Jack, for those listeners who might not have been following this week's events all that closely,

can you give us a bit of an overview into what's been happening and what's at stake for the government?

Okay, so what we've seen is the Miller challenge making, setting out their arguments, and essentially their

argument is that the prorogation requested by the Prime Minister was unlawful because essentially

it didn't take into account Parliament's constitutional role. It

misunderstood Parliament's constitutional role and as a result the prorogation should be declared

by the court unlawful. Then we've heard from the government that actually the court shouldn't

even be looking at this question. That actually the question of prorogation is something which

is subject to convention and in our system

that means that the courts don't play a role at all. Richard, you're writing your cover piece

...