R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
source
Case name	R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Court	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Citation	[2017] UKSC 5
Decided	24 January 2017
Judges	Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Carnwath
Prior actions	High Court (Divisional Court) [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin)
Keywords	Parliamentary sovereignty, prerogative, European Union, Article 50, devolution

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was a landmark United Kingdom constitutional law case concluding that the UK Prime Minister could not trigger Article 50 TEU to withdraw from the European Union using royal prerogative without an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. The decision affirmed principles of parliamentary sovereignty and led to significant political and legal contestation involving devolved administrations, the House of Commons, and the House of Lords.

Background

The case arose after the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 in which the United Kingdom electorate voted to leave the European Union. Following the referendum, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced intent to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to commence withdrawal. Claimant Gina Miller and other appellants challenged the exercise of royal prerogative powers by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union without statutory authorisation from the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The claim engaged issues involving the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Communities Act 1972, and the devolution settlements involving the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Legal issues

Central legal issues included whether the prerogative power could be used to alter rights created by statute, specifically rights under the European Communities Act 1972, and whether the prerogative could authorize the triggering of Article 50 TEU. Further issues concerned whether the claimants had standing to bring the judicial review and whether the legislative consent requirements of the Sewel Convention required consent from the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government before Article 50 was triggered. The case required interpretation of constitutional doctrines such as parliamentary sovereignty as articulated in decisions like Entick v Carrington and R (Jackson) v Attorney General and statutes including the Bill of Rights 1689.

Proceedings and judgments

The claim was first heard by the High Court of Justice (Divisional Court) where Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd sitting with Lord Justice Sales and Mr Justice Dove delivered judgment affirming that parliamentary authorisation was required. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court sat with a nine-justice panel including Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and delivered a majority judgment against the Government, ruling that an Act of Parliament was necessary to authorise triggering Article 50. The court also addressed challenges brought in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland and in the Court of Session in Scotland, which produced parallel litigation involving the Lord Advocate and the UK Government.

Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The majority relied on constitutional principles affirming that prerogative powers cannot be used to alter domestic law rights created by Parliament without express statutory authority, drawing on precedents like R (Jackson) v Attorney General and constitutional doctrine from Bill of Rights 1689. The court held that the European Communities Act 1972 had conferred rights on individuals, and only Parliament could authorise their removal. On devolution, the court discussed the Sewel Convention and concluded it did not constrain the legal power of the UK Parliament, referencing the separation of powers debates exemplified by cases such as AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate and statutes like the Scotland Act 1998. The decision clarified limits on the royal prerogative as regards international treaty actions that affect domestic statutory rights while engaging principles of judicial review as seen in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service.

Political and constitutional impact

The judgment precipitated urgent legislative action, leading the Parliament of the United Kingdom to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 to authorise notification under Article 50 TEU, and influenced debates in the House of Commons and House of Lords during the subsequent withdrawal negotiations with the European Union. The ruling intensified political controversy among actors such as the Theresa May Government, opponents including Jeremy Corbyn, and devolved leaders like Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones, and it shaped litigation strategy in related cases such as R (Miller) v The Prime Minister concerning prorogation. The case is frequently cited in analyses of UK constitutional law, judicial review, and the interaction between domestic courts and international law, influencing scholarship at institutions such as University of Oxford, London School of Economics, and Cambridge University.

Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law Category:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases