‘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.’
Law Pod UK, 27th September 2019
Source: audioboom.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 26th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
New Law Journal, 24th September 2019
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 24th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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.’
The Guardian, 22nd September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
The Guardian, 19th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘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.’
BBC News, 19th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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?’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 19th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘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.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th September 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘In R (Miller) and Others v The Prime Minister (hereinafter Miller No.2), the High Court of England and Wales found that the decision of the Prime Minister to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament was non-justiciable. In doing so, the judgment reveals the propensity of the judiciary to be much more protective of its own empire than that of the legislature. Ultimately, however, it is an approach that undermines both due to the creation of a legal black hole.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Fixed-term Parliaments Act has come in for a lot of criticism of late, but is it as badly designed and drafted as some commentators would have us believe? The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently commenced an inquiry into the effectiveness of the Act to seek answers to this question. Robert Hazell and Nabila Roukhamieh-McKinna explain the background to the inquiry, and some of the key issues being addressed.’
UCL Constitution Unit , 23rd September 2019
Source: constitution-unit.com
‘Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.’
BBC News, 11th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A Scottish judge has rejected a bid to have Boris Johnson’s plan to shut down parliament ahead of Brexit declared illegal.’
BBC News, 4th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In this article, UKSC Blog editor, Emma Boffey, an associate at CMS based in Scotland, writes on the Scottish legal challenge to the proroguing of the UK Parliament: a case widely expected to head to the UK Supreme Court in the coming weeks.’
UKSC Blog, 2nd September 2019
Source: ukscblog.com
‘While the prorogation of Parliament has generated political controversy, constitutional lawyers are asking whether the government acted legally in advising the Monarch. The legal challenges to the prorogation will face a number of hurdles. Even if the prerogative power is justiciable, there are difficult questions in identifying the specific legal issue. When writing about a potential challenge in June, Lord Pannick stated that one legal objection is that ‘the prime minister would be seeking to prorogue parliament for the purpose of avoiding parliamentary sovereignty on an issue of significant constitutional importance’. This post will explore a related line of argument, which focuses on proroguing Parliament as a means to avoid political accountability (so the argument does not rely on the language of sovereignty). The starting point in the line of argument is that the prorogation will to some degree hinder Parliament in whatever it wants to do in the period immediately prior to Britain exiting the EU. That goes beyond the potential to enact legislation or pass a motion of no confidence, and also includes the ordinary channels of political accountability and scrutiny of government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Prime Minister’s recent announcement that Parliament would be prorogued, thereby severely curtailing the opportunity for parliamentary debate, raises important issues of constitutional principle and law, and also issues concerning fact and causation. They are examined in turn.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 31st August 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘The idea of constitutional hardball was introduced to the world by Mark Tushnet. The sport is played when political actors decide the stakes are so high that any lawful action is justified, no matter how constitutionally problematic: hardball stays within the confines of the law, but runs against the spirit, and sometimes the conventions, of the constitution.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 31st August 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Other dictatorial moves may follow if Boris Johnson’s ruse is allowed to pass. The high court must listen to our case against it.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024