Introduction
This essay examines the significant constitutional law case of *R (Miller) v The Prime Minister* [2019], often referred to as Miller II, which addressed the legality of the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in 2019. The purpose of this analysis is to outline the key facts surrounding the case, explore its legal implications, and consider the broader impact on the balance of power within the UK’s unwritten constitution. The essay will first provide a factual overview of the case, then analyse the Supreme Court’s reasoning and decision, and finally discuss the significance of the ruling for parliamentary sovereignty and executive accountability. This case study offers a critical lens through which to understand the evolving dynamics of constitutional law in the UK, particularly in the context of Brexit-related political tensions.
Background and Key Facts
The case of *R (Miller) v The Prime Minister* emerged during a period of intense political deadlock over Brexit in 2019. On 28 August 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament from mid-September to mid-October, just weeks before the original Brexit deadline of 31 October. This move was widely perceived as an attempt to limit parliamentary scrutiny over the government’s Brexit strategy, sparking significant controversy (Russell, 2019). Gina Miller, a prominent campaigner who had previously challenged the government in *R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union* [2017], alongside other claimants including former Prime Minister Sir John Major, brought a legal challenge against this decision.
The central issue was whether the prorogation was lawful and whether it could be subject to judicial review. Critics argued that the length and timing of the prorogation—five weeks, during a critical period—were unprecedented and designed to frustrate Parliament’s ability to debate Brexit legislation. The government, however, maintained that prorogation was a political matter and thus a non-justiciable exercise of the royal prerogative (Elliott, 2019). This clash between political and legal principles framed the case as a landmark test of constitutional boundaries.
Supreme Court Decision and Legal Reasoning
On 24 September 2019, the UK Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgment declaring the prorogation unlawful. The Court, presided over by Lady Hale, held that the decision to prorogue Parliament had the effect of frustrating Parliament’s constitutional role to scrutinise the executive and enact legislation. The judgment established two critical points: first, that the power to prorogue is subject to legal limits, and second, that courts have the authority to review such decisions if they undermine fundamental constitutional principles (Supreme Court, 2019).
The Court reasoned that the prorogation was not merely a political act but one that impacted the democratic process. By preventing Parliament from sitting during a pivotal moment, the executive had exceeded its authority. Furthermore, the lack of a reasonable justification for the length of the prorogation rendered the advice to the Queen unlawful, and thus the prorogation itself was deemed null and void. This decision marked a significant assertion of judicial oversight over executive actions, reinforcing the principle that no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above the law (Barber, 2019).
Implications for Constitutional Law
The ruling in *Miller v The Prime Minister* carries profound implications for the UK’s constitutional framework. Firstly, it reaffirmed the centrality of parliamentary sovereignty, ensuring that the executive cannot unilaterally hinder Parliament’s functions. Secondly, it clarified that prerogative powers are not absolute and can be subject to judicial scrutiny when they infringe upon democratic principles. Indeed, this case arguably shifted the balance of power, enhancing judicial authority in constitutional disputes (Russell, 2019).
However, the decision also raised questions about the justiciability of political matters. While the Court insisted it was not encroaching on political territory, some critics argue that the judgment blurred the line between law and politics, potentially inviting future judicial overreach (Elliott, 2019). Generally, though, the case is seen as a victory for accountability, ensuring that executive actions remain within constitutional bounds, particularly during moments of national crisis like Brexit.
Conclusion
In conclusion, *R (Miller) v The Prime Minister* stands as a landmark case in UK constitutional law, highlighting the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic principles against executive overreach. By declaring the 2019 prorogation unlawful, the Supreme Court not only protected parliamentary sovereignty but also set a precedent for the legal limits of prerogative powers. The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate context of Brexit, offering a framework for addressing future tensions between the executive and Parliament. Ultimately, the case underscores the dynamic and evolving nature of the UK’s unwritten constitution, where judicial intervention can play a critical role in maintaining democratic integrity. As such, it remains a vital study for understanding the delicate balance of power in the British legal system.
References
- Barber, N.W. (2019) Prorogation and the Courts: Some Preliminary Thoughts. *Law Quarterly Review*, 135, pp. 567-572.
- Elliott, M. (2019) The Supreme Court and the prorogation of Parliament. *Public Law*, 2020(Jan), pp. 1-10.
- Russell, M. (2019) The prorogation crisis: A constitutional turning point? *Political Quarterly*, 90(4), pp. 623-630.
- Supreme Court (2019) R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41. UK Supreme Court.
