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

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

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

Alan Greene: Miller 2, Non-justiciability and the Danger of Legal Black Holes – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th September 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Article: The legal challenge to proroguing Parliament – what is happening in the Scottish Courts? – UKSC Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 2nd September 2019

Source: ukscblog.com

Jacob Rowbottom: Political Purposes and the Prorogation of Parliament – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd September 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Prorogation: Constitutional Principle and Law, Fact and Causation – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘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.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 31st August 2019

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Proroguing parliament sets a horrifying precedent. I’m going to court to stop it – Gina Miller – The Guardian

‘Other dictatorial moves may follow if Boris Johnson’s ruse is allowed to pass. The high court must listen to our case against it.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th August 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Parliament had failed on Brexit long before this prorogation – The Guardian

‘MPs had three years to come up with an alternative to no deal – and they failed.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th August 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Brexit: Gina Miller files for legal challenge to stop Boris Johnson’s ‘cynical and cowardly’ plan to prorogue parliament – The Independent

Posted August 29th, 2019 in brexit, constitutional law, judicial review, news, parliament, prorogation by tracey

‘Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller has as filed an urgent application for a legal challenge to stop Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s “cynical and cowardly” plan to prorogue parliament.’

Full Story

The Independent, 29th August 2019

Source: www.independent.co.uk

House of Lords passes amendment to help prevent no-deal Brexit – The Guardian

Posted July 18th, 2019 in bills, brexit, EC law, news, Northern Ireland, parliament, prorogation by tracey

‘Bill could make it illegal for a Boris Johnson administration to prorogue parliament.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 17th July 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Sam Fowles: Can the Prime Minister Prorogue Parliament to Deliver a No Deal Brexit? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘In recent days certain government backbenchers have proposed a new avenue to deliver a “no deal” Brexit.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th June 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Could ministerial advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament or to refuse assent to a Parliamentary Bill be challenged in the courts? – Brexit Law

‘This post continues the debate that has arisen following recent Parliamentary efforts to seize the initiative from the Government to avoid a no-deal Brexit, in particular the Cooper- Letwin Bill, and certain proposals that have emerged by which it is suggested the Government could thwart these efforts.’

Full Story

Brexit Law, 8th April 2019

Source: brexit.law

Stefan Theil: Unconstitutional Prorogation – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Parliament voted on the evening of 1 April in a series of indicative votes to determine what, if any, alternative plan for withdrawal from the European Union could command the support of the House of Commons: all plans put forward again failed to command a majority. In a recent intervention, John Finnis has suggested that the government should prorogue Parliament until after 12 April in order to terminate the current parliamentary debate. Mark Elliott has offered a critique of the broader implications of this argument, namely the claim that such a course of action would be ‘(…) wholly legitimate as a matter of constitutional principle.’ Elliott concludes that parliamentary control of the process is entirely legitimate and in keeping with the British constitution. This piece adds to this analysis by elaborating why the prorogation Finnis advocates under these specific circumstances would be, as Elliott summarily puts it, ‘(…) an argument for unconstitutional action on the part of the Government.’ The piece develops a twofold argument: first, that ministerial advice tendered to seek a prorogation of Parliament under these circumstances is unconstitutional and that the Monarch should disregard it as a matter of constitutional convention; and second that holding otherwise would in effect grant the Prime Minister an unqualified veto over parliamentary business, leaving the government in an unconscionable position of power over the sovereign Parliament. Such an outcome would be fundamentally at odds with British parliamentary democracy, especially principles of democracy and representative and responsible government.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd April 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org