R (Miller) v The Prime Minister

R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
Sodacan · CC BY-SA 4.0 · source
Name	R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
Court	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Date decided	24 September 2019
Full name	R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
Citations	[2019] UKSC 41
Judges	Lord Reed, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Kitchin, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Black, Lord Stephens

R (Miller) v The Prime Minister was a landmark 2019 decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom concerning the lawfulness of a prorogation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom advised by Boris Johnson to Elizabeth II. The case addressed the limits of prerogative power, the role of the courts in constitutional disputes, and the interpretation of statutes and common law principles derived from precedents involving figures such as Sir Edward Coke, William Blackstone, and institutions including the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Background

The dispute arose amid the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum aftermath and the political crisis over Brexit. After the 2017 United Kingdom general election, negotiations involved actors like Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, and parties such as the Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK), and the Scottish National Party. In August 2019 Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and pledged to leave the European Union by 31 October 2019, a deadline contested by members of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and litigants including Gina Miller, whose earlier case against the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union had reached the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2017. The Prime Minister advised Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, prompting parallel actions in the High Court of England and Wales and the Court of Session (Scotland), with prominent counsel such as Lord Pannick and institutions including the Advocate General for Scotland involved.

Legal Issues

The parties framed questions touching on prerogative powers deriving from the Royal Prerogative (United Kingdom), statutory interpretation with reference to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and constitutional principles rooted in cases like Entick v Carrington and writings of A. V. Dicey. Central issues included whether the prorogation was justiciable by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council-influenced domestic courts, whether the exercise was lawful under common law constraints protecting parliamentary sovereignty as articulated by judges such as Lord Denning, and whether the prorogation had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional functions of Parliament, a concern connected to doctrines expounded by jurists like Sir Matthew Hale and institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights in related jurisprudence.

Proceedings and Judgment

Two lead cases, one in England brought by Gina Miller and one in Scotland led by Shona Robison and the Scottish National Party (SNP), were expedited to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Court, with opinions delivered by Lord Reed on behalf of a unanimous panel including Lady Hale and Lord Kerr, held the prorogation justiciable and unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament without reasonable justification. The judgment relied on principles from precedents like R (Jackson) v Attorney General and statutory interpretation techniques associated with scholars such as Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Remedies drew on historical remedies exemplified in cases such as Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service and guided by the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over prerogative acts.

Constitutional and Political Impact

The decision reaffirmed the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty tracing to theorists like A. V. Dicey and institutional relationships involving the Monarchy of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It clarified limits on prerogative powers discussed in constitutional writings by Erskine May and institutional reforms debated in the House of Commons Library and by actors including John Major and Tony Blair. The judgment influenced debates in parliaments across the United Kingdom and was referenced in comparative contexts involving courts such as the Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Constitutional Court (Germany) concerning checks and balances between executives and legislatures.

Aftermath and Legacy

After the ruling, Parliament reconvened, and the prorogation was treated as null and void, affecting legislative timetables related to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and debates on potential No-deal Brexit scenarios advocated by figures like Jacob Rees-Mogg. The case has become a touchstone in constitutional scholarship alongside texts by Constitutional Law Committee members and commentators in publications such as the London Review of Books and the Times Literary Supplement. It has influenced subsequent litigation, academic discourse at institutions like Oxford University and Cambridge University, and reforms proposed in reports by committees including the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The decision remains central to discussions of judicial review, prerogative powers, and the evolving relationship between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Crown.

Category:2019 in British law Category:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases