Introduction

The landmark case of Miller, R (on the application of) v. The Prime Minister ([2019] UKSC 41) addressed the legality of the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament for an extended period in the context of Brexit negotiations. This judgment was pivotal in defining the boundaries of executive power, particularly concerning prerogative actions that impact Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability. The primary parties involved were Gina Miller and others as appellants against the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as the respondent.

Summary of the Judgment

The United Kingdom Supreme Court held that the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. The court determined that the prorogation had the effect of frustrating or preventing Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification, thereby violating the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability. Consequently, the prorogation was deemed null and of no effect, effectively rendering Parliament as not prorogued.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced historical and contemporary cases to establish the legal framework governing prerogative powers and their limits:

• Case of Proclamations (1611): Established that the Crown cannot alter the law of the land through prerogative powers.
• Entick v Carrington (1765): Affirmed that executive actions must have legal authority, protecting against unauthorized government intrusions.
• R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5: Reinforced that significant constitutional changes require Parliamentary approval.
• R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51: Illustrated the court's role in limiting executive overreach to protect fundamental rights and principles.
• R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52: Clarified the scope of Parliamentary privilege under the Bill of Rights 1688.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interplay between prerogative powers and constitutional principles:

• Justiciability of Prerogative Powers: The court affirmed that decisions regarding the use of prerogative powers, such as prorogation, are justiciable and subject to judicial review.
• Parliamentary Sovereignty: Emphasized that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, and any executive action that undermines its legislative functions must be scrutinized.
• Parliamentary Accountability: Highlighted that the executive must remain accountable to Parliament, and actions that impede this accountability are unlawful.
• Reasonable Justification: Established that any exercise of prerogative power must have a reasonable justification, especially when it significantly affects Parliament's ability to function.
• Effect on Constitutional Functions: Assessed whether the prorogation had a substantial and unreasonable impact on Parliament's legislative and supervisory roles.

Impact

The judgment has profound implications for the UK's constitutional framework:

• Judicial Oversight: Reinforces the judiciary's role in overseeing executive actions, ensuring they comply with constitutional principles.
• Executive Accountability: Limits the scope of executive discretion in using prerogative powers, particularly in contexts that may undermine democratic institutions.
• Parliamentary Sovereignty: Strengthens the position of Parliament as the central legislative body, safeguarding its ability to legislate without undue executive interference.
• Future Governance: Sets a precedent for how similar cases will be approached, potentially curbing future attempts to use prorogation as a political tool.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Prerogative Power

Definition: Prerogative powers are discretionary powers historically exercised by the Crown, now typically carried out by ministers on behalf of the Crown.

Context in Judgment: The case examined the limits of the Prime Minister's prerogative power to prorogue Parliament.

Prorogation

Definition: The formal ending of a parliamentary session, after which a new session begins with the Queen's Speech.

Impact: During prorogation, Parliament cannot meet, debate, or pass legislation, effectively halting its functions.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

Definition: The principle that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, capable of creating or ending any law.

Significance: Ensures that no body, including the executive, can override or undermine Parliamentary legislation.

Judicial Review

Definition: A process by which courts assess the legality of actions or decisions made by public bodies.

Role in Judgment: The Supreme Court exercised judicial review to assess the legality of the prorogation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Prime Minister marks a pivotal moment in UK constitutional law, asserting the judiciary's authority to oversee executive actions that may infringe upon Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability. By declaring the prorogation unlawful, the court reinforced the boundaries of prerogative powers, ensuring that such powers cannot be wielded to undermine democratic institutions and processes. This judgment not only clarifies the legal standards governing prorogation but also fortifies the balance of power between the executive and the legislature, safeguarding the fundamental principles of representative democracy in the United Kingdom.