Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule – BBC News
‘Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 24th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: constitutional law
Supreme court poised to rule against Boris Johnson, say legal experts – The Guardian
‘Boris Johnson would have no option but to recall MPs to Westminster if the supreme court rules he misled the Queen, senior legal sources told the Observer yesterday.’
The Guardian, 22nd September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
Supreme Court: What happened in the suspension of Parliament case? – BBC News
‘This was no ordinary court case. The battle in the Supreme Court over the shutdown of Parliament is a historic test of the powers of the prime minister, MPs and the courts.’
BBC News, 19th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
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?’
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.’
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.’
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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 13th September 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
In defence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act – UCL Constitution Unit
‘The Fixed-term Parliaments Act has come in for a lot of criticism of late, but is it as badly designed and drafted as some commentators would have us believe? The House of Lords Constitution Committee recently commenced an inquiry into the effectiveness of the Act to seek answers to this question. Robert Hazell and Nabila Roukhamieh-McKinna explain the background to the inquiry, and some of the key issues being addressed.’
UCL Constitution Unit , 23rd September 2019
Source: constitution-unit.com
Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful – BBC News
‘Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.’
BBC News, 11th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Brexit: Judge rejects parliament shutdown legal challenge – BBC News
‘A Scottish judge has rejected a bid to have Boris Johnson’s plan to shut down parliament ahead of Brexit declared illegal.’
BBC News, 4th September 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
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.’
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.’
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.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 31st August 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
Playing Hardball with the Queen – Oxford Human Rights Hub
‘The idea of constitutional hardball was introduced to the world by Mark Tushnet. The sport is played when political actors decide the stakes are so high that any lawful action is justified, no matter how constitutionally problematic: hardball stays within the confines of the law, but runs against the spirit, and sometimes the conventions, of the constitution.’
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.’
The Guardian, 29th August 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
Parliament suspension: What was the Queen’s role? – BBC News
‘It is most unlikely we will ever get any authoritative insight into what the Queen thought about the prime minister’s request for her to suspend Parliament.’
BBC News, 29th August 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
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.’
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
‘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.’
The Independent, 29th August 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Are there principles that trump democracy? The Reith Lectures, 2019: Lord Sumption’s Lecture and Responses – UK Human Rights Blog
‘Are there principles that trump democracy? This was one of a number of profound philosophical and legal questions addressed by former UK Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption in his recent and controversial Reith Lectures, which addressed subjects such an law’s expanding empire, the challenges posed by human rights, and the advantage of an unwritten constitution.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 29th July 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
Mike Gordon: Privacy International, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Synthetic Constitution – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘The case of R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the latest in a series of high profile judicial engagements with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The case concerned the legal status of s.68(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and in particular, whether this provision constituted a successful attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear challenges to the decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal by judicial review.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th June 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
