R (Miller) v PM: High Court concludes Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament is not justiciable
Aaron Nelson Legal Director
Under Britain’s constitutional conventions, the suspension of parliament is a Royal Prerogative power exercised by the monarch alone. Earlier this month, by order of HM the Queen, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, parliament was prorogued from 9 September until 14 October 2019.
Miller sought judicial review of the Prime Minister’s advice, arguing that the purpose of the prorogation was to prevent or frustrate parliament from holding the government to account and, in particular, from passing legislation that would require the Prime Minister to take steps to avoid the UK leaving the EU without an agreement under Article 50(3) of TFEU.
The High Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament was not justiciable as it was an exclusively political matter. The court also declined to recognise the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty as including Parliament’s right to conduct its business unimpeded.
Aaron Nelson, senior associate in our public law team, discusses the practical implications of the case and judgment in an article published by Lexis®PSL on 12 September 2019.
