R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>[2019] UKSC 41<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n Keywords:<\/strong> Brexit, Prorogation,\u00a0Constitutional Law\u00a0<\/p>\n This\u00a0case concerns the conglomeration of two appeals, one from the High Court of England\u00a0and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n The Scottish case was brought on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August,\u00a0a memorandum was sent\u00a0to the Prime Minister recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen\u2019s Speech on 14th October\u00a0to which\u00a0Prime Minister ticked \u2018yes\u2019.\u00a0<\/p>\n On 27th or 28th August he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates.\u00a0After a\u00a0Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle, an\u00a0Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.\u00a0<\/p>\n On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller\u2019s claim\u00a0finding\u00a0the issue not justiciable.\u00a0The\u00a0Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect. Mrs Miller\u2019s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General\u2019s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n It was held, on the first issue for consideration, that\u00a0there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power.\u00a0The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries, as long ago as 1611.\u00a0The lawfulness of the Prime Minister\u2019s advice to the Queen\u00a0was therefore determined\u00a0justiciable.\u00a0<\/p>\n It was ruled that the\u00a0power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.\u00a0The limit on the power to prorogue is that a decision to prorogue (or advising\u00a0the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervising the executive.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In light of\u00a0the third issue, it was ruled that this was not a normal\u00a0prorogation in the run-up to a Queen\u2019s Speech;\u00a0it prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role between the end of the summer recess and\u00a0the Brexit deadline\u00a0on 31st October.\u00a0While prorogued, it was stated, neither House could meet or pass legislation, or debate Government policy.\u00a0The exceptional\u00a0circumstances of the prorogation were also considered, in that\u00a0it\u00a0took place during a time of fundamental change to the UK constitution\u00a0with the 31st<\/sup>\u00a0October exit day.\u00a0It was ruled that Parliament had a right to\u00a0a voice in how that change comes about.\u00a0No justification for taking the action of prorogation in this instance was given\u00a0before the Court.\u00a0In light of\u00a0this, the Court concluded that\u00a0the 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n Argument was advanced\u00a0by the Government\u00a0claiming\u00a0that the Inner House\u00a0could not\u00a0declare that\u00a0any prorogation resulting from\u00a0the advice\u00a0was of not effect\u00a0because the prorogation was a \u201cproceeding in Parliament\u201d which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court; however, the Court ruled that\u00a0the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament.\u00a0Rather,\u00a0it\u00a0is something which has been imposed upon them from outside, not being\u00a0something\u00a0which members of Parliament can speak or vote on.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In conclusion, it was ruled that\u00a0the Prime Minister\u2019s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect\u00a0allowing Parliament to\u00a0reconvene.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This case concerns the conglomeration of two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nFacts<\/h3>\n
Issues<\/h3>\n
\n
Decision \/ Outcome<\/h3>\n