Adam Perry: Enforcing Principles, Enforcing Conventions – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Did the UK Supreme Court enforce a constitutional convention in Miller (No 2)? Most writers say no. I say yes.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd December 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Landmarks in law: the Brexit court ruling that thwarted Boris Johnson – The Guardian

‘By declaring the prorogation of parliament to be unlawful, the Supreme Court made a decision with huge legal consequences.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th November 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

David Dennis: Llewellyn, Hart and Miller 2 – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The decision in Miller 2 has been described by Martin Loughlin as effecting a paradigmatic shift in constitutional law, displacing constitutional review based on common law reasoning of case law and precedent to one based on some overreaching framework of constitutional principles of which the Court acts as guardian.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Jeff King: The Prime Minister’s Constitutional Options after the Benn Act: Part II – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘This is the second of a two-part discussion of this theme. The first part addressed the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; this second part addresses non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government. Heading numbering is continued from Part 1.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Jeff King: The Prime Minister’s Constitutional Options after the Benn Act: Part I – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘This is the first of a two-part discussion of this theme. This first part addresses the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; the second part will address non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Finnian Clarke: Habeas Corpus and the Nature of “Nullity” in UK Public Law – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘In the case of The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Supreme Court briefly directed its focus to its understanding of the nature of “nullity” following a finding of administrative unlawfulness. Its approach surprised some commentators, but in this post I will suggest that, far from being completely novel, the distinctions it appears to draw are familiar within the law of habeas corpus. This comparison will, I suggest, cast light upon the shifting and somewhat complex idea of “nullity” in UK public law.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

The UK Supreme Court’s “One Off” Judgment – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘It was a “one off”. A conclusive determination on a series of seismic constitutional clashes: representative democracy versus direct democracy, the executive versus Parliament, and the role of the Court in the separation of powers. Judges examining the constitution against a seething political background. But the lions emerged from beneath the throne, unanimously, in a judgment that unlocked the doors of Parliament and clearly, soberly reasserted our sovereign legislature.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th October 2019

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Theodore Konstadinides, Noreen O’Meara and Riccardo Sallustio: The UK Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller/Cherry: Reflections on Its Context and Implications – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘On 24 September, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, and that the resulting Order in Council and subsequent prorogation were ‘null, void and of no effect’. The litigation on the justiciability of prorogation and the lawfulness of the Prime Ministerial advice has led to one of the most engaging constitutional cases of recent times. As observers at the High Court and Supreme Court hearings, this post considers the context of the ruling, and certain striking implications of the judgment for the current and future Prime Ministers.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Anurag Deb: A Constitution of Principles: From Miller to Minerva Mills – UK Constitutional Law Assocation

‘In a succinct and surprisingly unanimous judgment in Miller and Cherry [2019] UKSC 41 the UK Supreme Court delivered an unprecedented rebuke to the Prime Minister in deciding that he had not shown “any reason – let alone a good reason” to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament, ruling that the prorogation was unlawful, void and of no effect. While the Court was anxious (and perhaps over-eager) to stress that the judgment was a “one-off”, constitutional lawyers have and will continue to debate the far-reaching effects of the ruling on the UK Constitution for decades to come. One discrete point that will divide commentators is the precise juridical basis for the decision, with eyebrows raised at the repeated appeals by the Court to common law constitutionalism in arriving at its decision. Aiden O’Neill QC, for the Cherry respondents referenced the landmark Marbury v Madison ruling of the US Supreme Court to highlight the significance of Wightman v Brexit Secretary and perhaps remind the Supreme Court of the momentousness of the prorogation appeals before it. Indeed, commentators have made comparisons between the UK Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court in the course of the increasingly fraught recent constitutional cases. While such comparisons may mushroom in the days (and years) to come, I argue that a tellingly apposite comparison in the underlying ratio of Miller and Cherry lies with a constitutional court on the other side of the world: The Supreme Court of India.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Ep 95: A Rogue Prorogation – Law Pod UK

‘Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.’

Full Story

Law Pod UK, 27th September 2019

Source: audioboom.com

After 10 years, the supreme court is confident in its role – The Guardian

‘Next Tuesday, 1 October, marks the 10th anniversary of the supreme court. Over the past decade, its neo-gothic portico, beneath which lawyers, litigants, protesters and politicians parade, has become an increasingly recognisable feature of national life.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 26th September 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Sam Fowles: Cherry/Miller: What’s Next? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgement in Cherry and Others v The Advocate General and Miller v the Prime Minister. The court found that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful and, consequently, null and void. This article aims to identify some of the immediate constitutional and political impacts of that decision.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th September 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Parliament was not prorogued: Michael Zander QC assesses the Supreme Court’s remarkable decision – New Law Journal

‘The decision of the Supreme Court is remarkable for many reasons. One is that it was produced in such a short time. Another, of immense importance, is that it is unanimous. A third is that it rejects the reasoning of the Divisional Court’s unanimous decision given by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President that the issue was not justiciable.’

Full Story

New Law Journal, 24th September 2019

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule – BBC News

‘Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

BBC News, 24th September 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Supreme court poised to rule against Boris Johnson, say legal experts – The Guardian

‘Boris Johnson would have no option but to recall MPs to Westminster if the supreme court rules he misled the Queen, senior legal sources told the Observer yesterday.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 22nd September 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

John Major’s lawyer attacks No 10 prorogation claims as ‘misleading’ – The Guardian

‘Downing Street put out “misleading” statements about the prorogation of parliament and published excuses for Boris Johnson’s five-week suspension of the Commons that are “not the true reasons”, the supreme court has been told by a lawyer for the former prime minister John Major.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 19th September 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Supreme Court: What happened in the suspension of Parliament case? – BBC News

‘This was no ordinary court case. The battle in the Supreme Court over the shutdown of Parliament is a historic test of the powers of the prime minister, MPs and the courts.’

Full Story

BBC News, 19th September 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Jeff King: Miller/Cherry and Remedies for Ultra Vires Delegated Legislation – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The issue of remedies for any finding that the 2019 prorogation of the UK Parliament is unlawful is presently under discussion in pleadings in the joined appeals of Miller No.2 and Joanna Cherry MP (and others) in the Supreme Court. Essentially, the question concerns what must occur if the minister’s advice is found unlawful, and what is the effect of ‘declaring’ the Order in Council which authorized the prorogation of Parliament to be ultra vires. Does it mean prorogation never legally happened? Should Parliament have been in session all along? How is any summoning or recall to take effect?’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 19th September 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Stephen Tierney: Prorogation and the Courts: A Question of Sovereignty – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The request made by the Privy Council that the Queen prorogue Parliament was a clumsy and inappropriate attempt to shorten the time available for parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process. That much seems clear from papers submitted to the Court of Session in Cherry. It is therefore no surprise that the Inner House was receptive to the petitioners’ argument that the advice given to Her Majesty violated the conventional purposes for which prorogation ought to be used and was therefore unconstitutional (Cherry, [1]; see also Lord Sumption). Where the court erred was in concluding that the act of prorogation was itself unlawful. The intimate relationship between the prerogative power to prorogue and the supremacy of Parliament precludes such a conclusion. If, as seems correct, a response to this breach of convention is warranted, it is one that can, constitutionally, only come from Parliament itself.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th September 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

A Tale of Two Judgments: Scottish Court of Session rules prorogation of Parliament unlawful, but High Court of England and Wales begs to differ – UK Human Rights Blog

‘The Scottish Court of Session (Inner House) today ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. The High Court of England and Wales today handed down its judgment on the same issue – and came to the opposite conclusion.’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 11th September 2019

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com