It comes just one day after Mr Johnson fought off a similar action in Scotland. A judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled on Wednesday that the planned prorogation was lawful.Lord Pannick said Mr Johnson sees Parliament as a “threat to the implementation of his policies” and as “impeding the pursuance of those policies”, in particular whether a deal can be made with the EU. He also said that, in his submission, the Prime Minister “has been very clear” that he views Parliament as a “nuisance” and a “detriment”. The case is expected to last one day before the three judges reach a decision. A legal challenge to the five-week suspension of parliament was brought before three leading judges on Thursday by Gina Miller, the anti-Brexit campaigner, backed by the former Prime Minister. The prorogation of Parliament by the Prime Minister has been deemed an “unlawful abuse of power” in the High Court as John Major raised “grave concerns” about the threat it posed to the British public. The Queen last month accepted the advice of Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament for the longest period in 40 years, which critics claimed was designed to stop MPs thwarting a no-deal Brexit. The urgent judicial review application was brought off the back of Ms Miller’s successful challenged of the Government at the High Court in 2016 over the triggering of the Article 50 process to start the Brexit countdown. Her new case is supported by a number of other parties, including Sir John and Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general. Sir John Major has backed Gina Miller’s court actionCredit:Leon Neal/Getty Images Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily Front Page newsletter and new audio briefings. A written submission prepared by lawyers on behalf of the former Tory leader said he had “grave concerns about the implications of the prorogation of Parliament for the rights of citizens at a time of critical national importance”. It continued: “If it is unlawful to frustrate or preempt Parliament’s will in relation to an issue on which it has legislated, it must be at least as unlawful – if not more so – to frustrate Parliament’s ability to convene to debate and legislate upon such an issue at all, by proroguing it during a critical period during which any such debate and legislation would need to take place.” The submission added: “The inference is inescapable that the otherwise unexplained length of the prorogation and the very obvious political interest that the Prime Minister has in there being no activity in Parliament during that time, are linked.”Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with two other judges at the High Court in London, is being urged to make a declaration that the decision taken on August 28 to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful.They were told by Lord Pannick QC, representing Ms Miller, that the prorogation of Parliament requested by Mr Johnson was of an “exceptional length” and unlawfully breached parliamentary sovereignty. He told the court: “Our case is that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a period of five weeks is an unlawful abuse of power and the reason it is an unlawful breach of power is that it breaches the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty. “The effect of prorogation is to remove the ability of Parliament to enact such legislation as it sees fit and on issues of public policy relating to the arrangements for this country to leave the European Union it does so during a period when time is very much of the essence because the deadline deadline, the existing deadline of October 31.” Mr Johnson claims the current session of Parliament is the longest for hundreds of years and ending it would allow him to set out his intention for Government with a new Queen’s speech. However, Lord Pannick said: “There is no dispute that the Prime Minister is entitled to decide that it is appropriate to end this session of Parliament.”We say that what the Prime Minister is not entitled to do is close Parliament for five weeks at such a critical time without justification. “The five week prorogation is simply not required for the purposes of a Queen’s Speech.”He insisted the court was not being asked to express “any view about the wisdom of the UK leaving the European Union, or about the terms on which we leave the EU”.