The ship sailed from Bandar Abbas port at 9 a.m. local time on Friday, Iran's state-run news agency IRNA reported. The company operating the ship, Stena Bulk, also confirmed the tanker's release.
"The vessel has left the port of Bandar Abbas and is transiting to Dubai for the crew to disembark and receive medical checks and de-briefing," the president and CEO of Stena Bulk, Erik Hanell, said in a statement.
"The families of crew members have been informed and the company is currently making arrangements for the repatriation of its valued seafarers at the earliest possible opportunity," Hanell added.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards forces captured the ship in the Strait of Hormuz in July amid increasing hostility between Tehran and the West. Twenty-three crew members -- none of them British -- were on board.
UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab reiterated criticism of Iran on Friday, saying that the ship's detainment was "part of a pattern of attempts to disrupt freedom of navigation."
In a statement, Raab again said Iran "unlawfully" seized the ship in July. "We are working with our international partners to protect shipping and uphold the international rule of law," the statement also said.
In recent weeks, London and Tehran have intensified talks. On Tuesday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson met Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
Johnson called for the immediate release of Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe and other dual nationals imprisoned in Iran, according to a Downing Street spokesperson.
In late August, the UK released an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar, a British overseas territory on the edge of southern Spain.
Gibraltar authorities released the Iranian ship despite 11th-hour efforts by the United States to halt the move.
While Stena Impero was sailing under a UK flag, the company that operates it is headquartered in Sweden. Earlier this month, seven Indian crew members aboard the tanker were released.
Meanwhile, on Sunday, Johnson accused Iran of being behind the September 14 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, reported the UK's PA Media news agency.
Johnson said he wanted to "deescalate tensions," but did not rule out military action if asked to take a role by Saudi Arabia or the United States, PA reported. Iran has denied responsibility for the attack.
CNN's Livvy Doherty contributed to this report from London.
The meteor passed over London, according to witnesses who caught a glimpse of the fireball streaking overhead on Tuesday, September 24, at 7.54pm BST. The meteor’s flyby has since been confirmed by the UK Meteor Observation Network. The meteor-tracking group filmed the fireball appear over the East Barnet area in North London. The group said: “A massive fireball spotted from our East Barnet Camera even through the cloud cover.”
Eyewitnesses took to social media to report their sighting of the meteor.
Twitter user Chris Cenci claims he was onboard a flight to London Heathrow when he saw the fireball.
He said: “I was flying UAL934 and saw it just before landing. The blue line is my best guess as to location and direction (SE to NW). So cool!”
Others reported the meteor sighting from Kingston, Buckinghamshire and West Horsely in Surrey.
Samantha Jackson tweeted a the Meteor Observation Network: “Saw it whilst walking the dogs in Hitchin Hertfordshire. Really green in colour.
“Glad I found this tweet as hubby didn’t believe me.”
Robert Currie asked on Twitter: “Anyone just see a super bright meteor over London travelling northwards?
“Am in South London and it shone white/yellow that burnt to a bright blue green flash happened at 7.55pm BST.”
Jocelyn Le Conte said: Yes! I just saw this in Purley, near Croydon. Glad it wasn't just me!”
Amateur astronomer George Miller recorded dramatic footage of the London meteor, writing on Twitter: “Fireball seen from London 24 September at 19:54 UK Meteor Observation Network."
Another Twitter user said he saw the meteor flash green overhead in Brondesbury.
Kirsty Keith said she saw the meteor “green like a sideways fire rock” from Walton on Thames.
What is a meteor?
Meteoroids are small rocky or metallic bodies in outer space.
They are significantly smaller than asteroids and range in size from small grains to one-metre-wide objects.
Objects smaller than this are classified as micrometeoroids or space dust.
US space agency NASA said: “When meteoroids enter Earth’s atmosphere – or that of another planet, like Mars – at high speed and burn up, the fireballs or ‘shooting stars’ are called meteors.
“When a meteoroid survives a trip through the atmosphere and hits the ground, it’s called a meteorite.”
The UK Meteor Observation Network has kept track of all meteors flying over the UK since 2012.
The meteor passed over London, according to witnesses who caught a glimpse of the fireball streaking overhead on Tuesday, September 24, at 7.54pm BST. The meteor’s flyby has since been confirmed by the UK Meteor Observation Network. The meteor-tracking group filmed the fireball appear over the East Barnet area in North London. The group said: “A massive fireball spotted from our East Barnet Camera even through the cloud cover.”
Eyewitnesses took to social media to report their sighting of the meteor.
Twitter user Chris Cenci claims he was onboard a flight to London Heathrow when he saw the fireball.
He said: “I was flying UAL934 and saw it just before landing. The blue line is my best guess as to location and direction (SE to NW). So cool!”
Others reported the meteor sighting from Kingston, Buckinghamshire and West Horsely in Surrey.
Samantha Jackson tweeted a the Meteor Observation Network: “Saw it whilst walking the dogs in Hitchin Hertfordshire. Really green in colour.
“Glad I found this tweet as hubby didn’t believe me.”
Robert Currie asked on Twitter: “Anyone just see a super bright meteor over London travelling northwards?
“Am in South London and it shone white/yellow that burnt to a bright blue green flash happened at 7.55pm BST.”
Jocelyn Le Conte said: Yes! I just saw this in Purley, near Croydon. Glad it wasn't just me!”
Amateur astronomer George Miller recorded dramatic footage of the London meteor, writing on Twitter: “Fireball seen from London 24 September at 19:54 UK Meteor Observation Network."
Another Twitter user said he saw the meteor flash green overhead in Brondesbury.
Kirsty Keith said she saw the meteor “green like a sideways fire rock” from Walton on Thames.
What is a meteor?
Meteoroids are small rocky or metallic bodies in outer space.
They are significantly smaller than asteroids and range in size from small grains to one-metre-wide objects.
Objects smaller than this are classified as micrometeoroids or space dust.
US space agency NASA said: “When meteoroids enter Earth’s atmosphere – or that of another planet, like Mars – at high speed and burn up, the fireballs or ‘shooting stars’ are called meteors.
“When a meteoroid survives a trip through the atmosphere and hits the ground, it’s called a meteorite.”
The UK Meteor Observation Network has kept track of all meteors flying over the UK since 2012.
The meteor passed over London, according to witnesses who caught a glimpse of the fireball streaking overhead on Tuesday, September 24, at 7.54pm BST. The meteor’s flyby has since been confirmed by the UK Meteor Observation Network. The meteor-tracking group filmed the fireball appear over the East Barnet area in North London. The group said: “A massive fireball spotted from our East Barnet Camera even through the cloud cover.”
Eyewitnesses took to social media to report their sighting of the meteor.
Twitter user Chris Cenci claims he was onboard a flight to London Heathrow when he saw the fireball.
He said: “I was flying UAL934 and saw it just before landing. The blue line is my best guess as to location and direction (SE to NW). So cool!”
Others reported the meteor sighting from Kingston, Buckinghamshire and West Horsely in Surrey.
Samantha Jackson tweeted a the Meteor Observation Network: “Saw it whilst walking the dogs in Hitchin Hertfordshire. Really green in colour.
“Glad I found this tweet as hubby didn’t believe me.”
Robert Currie asked on Twitter: “Anyone just see a super bright meteor over London travelling northwards?
“Am in South London and it shone white/yellow that burnt to a bright blue green flash happened at 7.55pm BST.”
Jocelyn Le Conte said: Yes! I just saw this in Purley, near Croydon. Glad it wasn't just me!”
Amateur astronomer George Miller recorded dramatic footage of the London meteor, writing on Twitter: “Fireball seen from London 24 September at 19:54 UK Meteor Observation Network."
Another Twitter user said he saw the meteor flash green overhead in Brondesbury.
Kirsty Keith said she saw the meteor “green like a sideways fire rock” from Walton on Thames.
What is a meteor?
Meteoroids are small rocky or metallic bodies in outer space.
They are significantly smaller than asteroids and range in size from small grains to one-metre-wide objects.
Objects smaller than this are classified as micrometeoroids or space dust.
US space agency NASA said: “When meteoroids enter Earth’s atmosphere – or that of another planet, like Mars – at high speed and burn up, the fireballs or ‘shooting stars’ are called meteors.
“When a meteoroid survives a trip through the atmosphere and hits the ground, it’s called a meteorite.”
The UK Meteor Observation Network has kept track of all meteors flying over the UK since 2012.
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
The PM says he "strongly disagrees" with the ruling but will "respect" it.
Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation so he could outline his government's new policies in a Queen's Speech.
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary.
At a speech in New York, the PM said he "refused to be deterred" on getting on with "an exciting and dynamic domestic agenda", and to do that he would need a Queen's Speech.
The court ruling does not prevent him from proroguing again in order to hold one, as long as it does not stop Parliament from carrying out its duties "without reasonable justification".
Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
He said prime minister's questions would not go ahead, but there would be "full scope" for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.
Where does this leave Boris Johnson?
Short of the inscrutable Lady Hale, with the giant diamond spider on her lapel, declaring Boris Johnson to be Pinocchio, this judgement is just about as bad for the government as it gets.
Mr Johnson is, as is abundantly clear, prepared to run a general election campaign that pits Parliament against the people. And so what, according to that view of the world, if that includes the judges as part of the establishment standing in his way?
But there is a difference between being ruthless and reckless.
And the scope and strength of this judgement cannot just be dismissed as some pesky judges sticking their noses in.
Reacting to the ruling, Mr Johnson said it was an "unusual judgement", adding: "I don't think this was the right decision. The prerogative of prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge.
"There are a lot of people who basically want to stop this country from coming out of the EU and we have a Parliament that is unable to be prorogued and doesn't want to have an election. I think it is time we took things forward."
Media playback is unsupported on your device
The PM said getting a deal was "not made much easier with these sort of things in Parliament or the courts", but insisted the UK would still leave on 31 October.
Pushed on whether he would attempt to suspend Parliament again, he said there was "a good case for getting on with a Queen's Speech anyway", and the Supreme Court had not "remotely excluded" the possibility.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the ruling showed Mr Johnson's "contempt for democracy", adding: "I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position."
Mr Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday, but has brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he can return to Parliament.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.
But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".
The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "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".
The damage is done
Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.
It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.
The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.
And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.
That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.
This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.
Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.
Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.
What was the court considering?
The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.
Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.
How did those involved in the case react?
Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".
"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.
The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.
"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.
"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - one of the sponsors of the prorogation appeal - said it gave him "no pleasure to be pitted against a government and prime minister of my own party".
"No prime minister must ever treat the monarch or Parliament in this way again."
In Northern Ireland, the leader of the DUP, Arlene Foster, said the ruling must be respected, while Sinn Fein's vice president, Michelle O'Neill, said Mr Johnson should resign.
Other figures have taken to Twitter to support the court's decision, including former Tory minister Amber Rudd, who resigned her post - and the party whip - over the government's approach to Brexit.
Despite personal assurances from the PM, the Cabinet was not shown the legal advice around this prorogation.
This is an astonishing moment and I regret that the PM, who entered office with such goodwill, went down this route. I urge him to work with Parliament to pass a Deal.
The leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, said the suspension was the "worst political decision ever" and called for Mr Johnson's chief advisor to resign.
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".
Media playback is unsupported on your device
But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".
He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country."
Fellow Tory MP and chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group Steve Baker said the ruling was an "earthquake moment".
He described the Commons as a "rotten Parliament" facing a "crisis", and called for a general election so a government with a majority could move forward.
What happened before Parliament was suspended?
Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen, carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister.
And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October.
MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences.
But unlike prorogation, a recess must be agreed by a vote, and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson's Brexit plans.
The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons, especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline.
Despite only sitting for a week, they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September.
What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question on this topic.
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but the court said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Commons Speaker John Bercow confirmed MPs would now return on Wednesday.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
A raft of MPs have now called for the prime minister to resign - Downing Street said it was "currently processing the verdict".
Mr Johnson argued he wanted to carry out the prorogation ahead of a Queen's Speech so he could outline his government's new policies.
But critics said he was trying to stop MPs from scrutinising his Brexit plans and the suspension was far longer than necessary for a Queen's Speech.
Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
Mr Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
He said prime minister's questions - which normally takes place on a Wednesday - would not go ahead, though, because Mr Johnson was in New York for a UN summit.
However, Mr Bercow said there would be "full scope" for urgent questions, ministerial statements and applications for emergency debates.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the ruling showed Mr Johnson's "contempt for democracy", adding: "I invite Boris Johnson, in the historic words, to consider his position."
Mr Corbyn was due to close the Labour Party conference in Brighton with a speech on Wednesday, but has brought it forward to Tuesday afternoon so he can return to Parliament.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.
But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".
The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "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".
The damage is done
Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.
It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.
The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.
And the court has quashed both his advice to the Queen and the Order in Council which officially suspended parliament.
That means Parliament was never prorogued and so we assume that MPs are free to re-enter the Commons.
This is the most dramatic example yet of independent judges, through the mechanism of judicial review, stopping the government in its tracks because what it has done is unlawful.
Be you ever so mighty, the law is above you - even if you are the prime minister.
Unprecedented, extraordinary, ground breaking - it is difficult to overestimate the constitutional and political significance of today's ruling.
What was the court considering?
The ruling was made after a three-day hearing at the Supreme Court last week which dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government.
Mrs Miller was appealing against the English High Court's decision that the prorogation was "purely political" and not a matter for the courts.
The government was appealing against the ruling by Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The court ruled in favour of Mrs Miller's appeal and against the government's.
How did those involved in the case react?
Speaking outside the court, Mrs Miller said the ruling "speaks volumes".
"This prime minister must open the doors of Parliament tomorrow. MPs must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account," she added.
The SNP's Joanna Cherry, who led the Scottish case, called for Mr Johnson to resign as a result of the ruling.
"The highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this Parliament, his advice given to Her Majesty the Queen, was unlawful," she said.
"His position is untenable and he should have the guts, for once, to do the decent thing and resign."
What about other MPs?
Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who has been an outspoken critic of the suspension, said he was "not surprised" by the judgement because of the "gross misbehaviour by the prime minister".
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme he was "delighted" the Supreme Court had "stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks".
Media playback is unsupported on your device
But Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said the court's decision was "the worst possible outcome for our democracy" and "an absolute disgrace".
He told the same programme: "What we've got is a Parliament that's completely out of step with sentiment of the country. They're holding out democracy to ransom.
"What we're going to see is the Speaker effectively taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers' tune until the 31st of October."
What happened before Parliament was suspended?
Prorogation is a power that rests with the Queen, carried out by her on the advice of the prime minister.
And at the end of August - shortly before MPs returned from their summer recess - Mr Johnson called Her Majesty to advise she suspend Parliament between 9 September until 14 October.
MPs had been expecting to be in recess for some of these weeks for their party conferences.
But unlike prorogation, a recess must be agreed by a vote, and a number of MPs said they would have voted against it to ensure they could scrutinise Mr Johnson's Brexit plans.
The decision to prorogue prompted an uproar from the Commons, especially from MPs who had planned to take control of Parliament to force through a law to block a no-deal Brexit after Mr Johnson said the UK would leave the EU with or without a deal on the Halloween deadline.
Despite only sitting for a week, they did manage to pass that law ahead of prorogation and it received royal assent on 9 September.
What questions do you have about the Supreme Court's decision?
Use this form to ask your question:
If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question on this topic.
Boris Johnson should resign after the Supreme Court found his suspension of Parliament is unlawful, First Minister Mark Drakeford has said.
The court's justices found that, in effect, the five-week prorogation never took place.
It is a "victory for the rule of law", Mr Drakeford said.
But Brexiteers called for a general election, with Monmouth MP David Davies saying the prime minister was facing a "pro-EU establishment".
House of Commons Speaker John Bercow has said Parliament will resume at 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
Downing Street said it was "currently processing the verdict".
Mr Drakeford said: "The prime minister tried to play fast and loose with our constitution. The unanimous decision by the Supreme Court is a huge victory for the rule of law.
"Parliament was never prorogued and must now hold this government to account."
He added: "Any normal prime minister would - as a matter of honour - tender their resignation after such a unanimous verdict from the UK's highest court.
"It is the final straw in a pitiful episode for the country."
Prime Minister Boris Johnson controversially announced on 28 August that Parliament would be suspended until mid-October, causing a row with opposition politicians.
The Welsh Government argued it got in the way of the work of the assembly - opposition MPs complained it meant they were unable to properly scrutinise the UK government ahead of Brexit.
Ruling unanimously, the Supreme Court's 11 judges found the PM's advice to the Queen was "unlawful, void and of no effect" when he asked the Queen to suspend Parliament.
The decision "had the effect of frustrating or preventing" parliament from carrying out its functions, it said.
The Supreme Court made its judgement following cases in the English and Scottish courts, the former backed by the Welsh Government, the latter supported by a number of Welsh MPs.
They included Jo Stevens, Cardiff Central Labour MP, who said: "That was a comprehensive demolition by the Supreme Court of the liar we unfortunately have as Prime Minister. He must resign."
Labour's MP for Cardiff South and Penarth Stephen Doughty told the BBC: "He's lied to the Queen, he's acted unlawfully and he's played fast and loose with our constitution and our basic principles.
"The Supreme Court unanimously is upholding our constitution. What he's done is he prevented us as members of Parliament from not only doing our job on Brexit but on so many other issues, from pensions to climate change to health to education."
Any normal Prime Minister would – as a matter of honour – tender their resignation after such a unanimous verdict from the UK’s highest court. It is the final straw in a pitiful episode for the country.
Plaid Cymru MPs also backed the Scottish case. Party leader Adam Price said: "There is only one response now acceptable by the prime minister to this damning and unanimous judgement by the Supreme Court: Resign."
"After getting rid of this dishonest prime minister Parliament must now move to end the chaos and uncertainty and take it back to the people in a People's Vote so we can finally move on from this dark chapter in our politics."
Westminster Plaid leader Liz Saville Roberts said: "The prime minister has shown himself to be no better than a tin-pot dictator, shutting down democracy to avoid scrutiny."
Some MPs, including Swansea East MP Carolyn Harris, tweeted pictures of themselves returning to the green benches. The House of Commons speaker John Bercow has said he is consulting party leaders.
He said Parliament "must convene without delay".
Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Jane Dodds welcomed the "damning judgement from the courts that confirms the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and politically motivated".
"Parliament must be recalled now so we can get on with our jobs," she said. "With the Brexit clock still ticking down there isn't a moment to lose."
Monmouth Conservative MP David Davies defended the Tory leader, saying he stood with Mr Johnson "who is doing everything possible to deliver on the clear result of a referendum in the face of a powerful pro EU establishment".
"They want the PM to resign - but they don't want an election," he said.
Former Welsh Conservative assembly group leader Andrew Davies called for an election.
"The courts have had their say, Parliament has had its say, now it's time the people had theirs," he said.
