Introduction
This essay explores the constitutional issues arising from the landmark case of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, commonly referred to as the second Miller case. Decided by the UK Supreme Court in September 2019, this case addressed the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, amidst intense Brexit-related political tensions. The essay aims to outline the constitutional significance of the judgment, focusing on key issues such as the justiciability of prorogation, the limits of executive power, and the protection of parliamentary sovereignty. By examining these aspects, supported by academic commentary and primary legal sources, this piece will demonstrate the broader implications for the UK’s uncodified constitution.
Justiciability of Prorogation
One of the primary constitutional issues in R v The Prime Minister was whether the decision to prorogue Parliament was justiciable, meaning whether it could be reviewed by courts. Historically, matters of royal prerogative, such as prorogation, were considered political and outside judicial scrutiny (Loveland, 2021). However, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the lawfulness of prorogation could be subject to legal challenge if it undermined fundamental constitutional principles. The Court argued that determining the lawfulness of executive action was within its purview, marking a significant shift in judicial oversight of political decisions. This ruling clarified that even prerogative powers are not immune to judicial review when they conflict with constitutional norms, thereby setting a precedent for future cases involving executive overreach (Elliott, 2019). Indeed, this aspect of the judgment arguably reframes the relationship between the judiciary and the executive in the UK.
Limits of Executive Power
A further critical issue was the extent to which executive power, exercised through the royal prerogative, could be limited. The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful as it prevented Parliament from fulfilling its constitutional role of holding the government to account (R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41). This decision highlighted the principle that executive actions must not frustrate the constitutional balance between the branches of government. Academic analysis suggests that this judgment reinforces the notion that prerogative powers, though historically broad, are not absolute and must align with democratic accountability (Barber, 2020). Therefore, the case underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive power, particularly in times of political crisis.
Protection of Parliamentary Sovereignty
Central to the case was the protection of parliamentary sovereignty, a cornerstone of the UK constitution. The Supreme Court found that the extended prorogation impeded Parliament’s ability to debate and legislate on Brexit, a matter of national importance. By rendering the prorogation unlawful, the Court reaffirmed that no executive action can undermine Parliament’s fundamental role without legal justification (Elliott, 2019). This decision arguably strengthens the constitutional safeguard of parliamentary supremacy, ensuring that the executive cannot bypass legislative scrutiny through procedural tactics. The case, therefore, serves as a reminder of the delicate balance required in the UK’s uncodified constitutional framework, where unwritten conventions must sometimes be upheld through judicial intervention (Loveland, 2021).
Conclusion
In conclusion, R v The Prime Minister raised profound constitutional issues concerning the justiciability of prerogative powers, the limits of executive authority, and the protection of parliamentary sovereignty. The Supreme Court’s ruling not only declared the prorogation unlawful but also set a significant precedent for judicial oversight of executive actions in the UK. This case illustrates the judiciary’s growing role in safeguarding constitutional principles, particularly in periods of political uncertainty like Brexit. The broader implication is a clearer delineation of the boundaries of executive power, ensuring that democratic accountability remains paramount. Future constitutional disputes will likely draw on this judgment to navigate the tensions inherent in an uncodified system, highlighting the evolving nature of the UK’s constitutional framework.
References
- Barber, N.W. (2020) The Principles of Constitutionalism. Oxford University Press.
- Elliott, M. (2019) ‘The Supreme Court and the Rule of Law: Case Studies in Legal Accountability’, Public Law, 2019(4), pp. 654-672.
- Loveland, I. (2021) Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. 9th ed. Oxford University Press.
- R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41. Available at: Supreme Court Judgment. The Supreme Court.
