Case Summary - R (Miller) V The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 14

Facts

Proroguing is a term used for suspending or ending a Parliamentary session. In September 2019, Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, advised Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue Parliament for five weeks. It was due to start on 9 September and end on 14 October.

The prorogation was controversial, as it would have prevented Parliament from scrutinising the government's Brexit plans before the 31 October deadline for the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.

Some people challenged the prorogation in the courts, arguing that it was unlawful.

Legal principles 

Whether or not to prorogue Parliament is a political decision, but the courts can review the decision to ensure that it is not unlawful. It is a royal prerogative but is not absolute. The purpose of prorogation is to allow Parliament to prepare for a new session, not to prevent it from scrutinising the government's actions or frustrate or prevent it from carrying out its constitutional functions.

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. It found that the prorogation was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the government's Brexit plans.

More recent cases 

As R (Miller) v the Prime Minister was an exceptional case, it has not been cited in many subsequent cases. However, it was cited in Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 10. The court concluded that it was able to interfere in the government’s decision to provide material to USA law enforcement agencies which were likely to result in the death penalty being imposed. 

Significance

R (Miller) v the Prime Minister is a landmark case that has had a significant impact on the UK constitution. It has established that the courts can review the exercise of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue Parliament and the purpose of prorogation. The case has also helped to ensure that Parliament can carry out its constitutional functions without interference from the government. 

The political and public reaction to this case was huge and divisive. Some saw it as a violation of the separation of powers for the court to decide on political issues; others argued that the courts have frequently involved themselves in political issues.