> they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it They explicitly didn't do this: > We are not concerned with the Prime

> they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it They explicitly didn't do this: > We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it > It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful. They didn't conclude anything specific about why the PM did it; they concluded that no reason was given.