UK Case Law

R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019): Upholding Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Rule of Law

TheLawStudent

In the complex landscape of UK constitutional law, certain cases emerge as defining moments, shaping the trajectory of legal principles and governance. Among these, R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019) stands as a notable landmark, illuminating the intricate balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. In this blog post, we explore the background of the case, dissect the court’s decision, and evaluate the enduring significance of this pivotal moment in UK constitutional jurisprudence.

The Background of the Case:

The case of R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019) unfolded against the backdrop of Britain’s protracted Brexit saga. Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, sought to prorogue (suspend) Parliament in the run-up to the Brexit deadline, ostensibly to pave the way for a new legislative agenda. Gina Miller, the same campaigner involved in the earlier case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), challenged the prorogation, arguing that it was an unconstitutional attempt to stifle parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s Brexit plans.

Miller contended that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament for an extended period was an abuse of executive power, designed to evade parliamentary oversight and limit debate on Brexit. She maintained that such a move undermined the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, which are fundamental to the UK’s constitutional framework.

The Decision of the Court:

The case was heard by the UK Supreme Court in September 2019, and in a unanimous judgment delivered on 24th September 2019, the court ruled in favour of Gina Miller. The justices held that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, null, and of no effect. They concluded that the Prime Minister’s decision had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The court reaffirmed the principle that parliamentary sovereignty is a foundational feature of the UK’s constitutional framework, and that the executive must act within the bounds of the law and respect parliamentary democracy. The judgment asserted the importance of robust judicial review as a check on executive power and underscored the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law.

The Significance of the Case:

R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019) holds profound significance in UK constitutional law, encapsulating the enduring principles of democratic accountability, separation of powers, and the rule of law. The case underscores the vital role of an independent judiciary in safeguarding constitutional norms and ensuring legal accountability, particularly in times of political turbulence.

The judgment reaffirms the supremacy of Parliament and the principle that no one, not even the Prime Minister, is above the law. It serves as a potent reminder of the constitutional checks and balances that underpin the UK’s democratic system, shielding it from executive overreach and preserving the integrity of parliamentary democracy.

In conclusion, R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019) represents a pivotal moment in UK constitutional law, illuminating the delicate interplay between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It stands as a testament to the resilience of the UK’s constitutional framework and the enduring commitment to the rule of law in safeguarding democratic principles and individual rights.

R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017): A Pivotal Moment in UK Constitutional Law

TheLawStudent

In the tumultuous aftermath of the 2016 Brexit referendum, the United Kingdom found itself grappling with profound questions of constitutional law and governance. At the heart of this debate stood the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), a legal battle that would come to epitomize the complexities and tensions surrounding Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU). In this blog post, we delve into the background of the case, explore the court’s decision, and examine the enduring significance of this landmark moment in UK constitutional law.

The Background of the Case:

In the wake of the 2016 Brexit referendum, which saw a narrow majority of British voters opting to leave the European Union (EU), the question of how to initiate the withdrawal process became a matter of significant constitutional importance. Gina Miller, an investment manager and campaigner, brought legal proceedings against the government, challenging its assertion that it could trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union—initiating the formal Brexit process—without seeking parliamentary approval.

Miller argued that the government’s use of prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 would circumvent the authority of Parliament and undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. She contended that such a momentous decision, with profound implications for domestic law and rights, required the explicit approval of Parliament.

The Decision of the Court:

In January 2017, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom heard arguments in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. In its landmark judgment, delivered on 24th January 2017, the court ruled in favour of Gina Miller. The justices held that the government could not trigger Article 50 without first obtaining parliamentary approval.

The court reaffirmed the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty, emphasising that significant constitutional changes could only be brought about through legislation passed by Parliament. It rejected the government’s argument that prerogative powers could be used to initiate the Brexit process without parliamentary involvement, stating that such a course of action would undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

The Significance of the Case:

The significance of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) extends beyond its immediate context. The case serves as a watershed moment in UK constitutional law, underscoring the importance of legal accountability, transparency, and the rule of law in navigating complex constitutional challenges.

The judgment reaffirmed the pivotal role of Parliament as the ultimate arbiter of the nation’s destiny, particularly in matters of profound national significance. It ensured that Brexit negotiations proceeded with parliamentary oversight, reflecting a commitment to democratic principles and institutional checks and balances.

Furthermore, the case serves as a potent reminder of the enduring resilience of the UK’s constitutional framework, even in the face of unprecedented political upheaval. It underscores the enduring importance of upholding democratic values, protecting individual rights, and ensuring robust mechanisms of legal accountability in safeguarding the rule of law.

In conclusion, R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) occupies a prominent place in the annals of UK constitutional law, embodying the timeless principles of legal integrity, constitutionalism, and the primacy of parliamentary sovereignty in shaping the nation’s destiny.

Entick v Carrington (1765): A Landmark Case in Constitutional Law

TheLawStudent

Entick v Carrington (1765) is a landmark case in the history of English law. The case is significant because it established the principle of individual freedom and privacy and has been a cornerstone of modern democratic societies ever since.

The Background of the Case:

In the year 1762, John Entick, a writer and bookseller, was critical of the policies of the King’s government in his writings. The government, led by Lord Halifax, suspected that Entick was publishing seditious material and ordered his home to be searched without a warrant. The search was carried out by four messengers of the Crown, including Nathan Carrington, who seized papers and books from Entick’s home and arrested him.

Entick challenged the legality of the search and seizure and sued Carrington for trespass. The case eventually reached the Court of King’s Bench, where it was argued that the Crown had the power to search and seize without a warrant if it was necessary for the preservation of the peace or the detection of crime.

The Decision of the Court:

The Court of King’s Bench, led by Lord Camden, rejected the argument of the Crown and ruled that the search and seizure were illegal. The Court held that the common law provided protection for the individual’s freedom and privacy, and the Crown had no power to infringe on those rights without lawful authority. The Court declared that the warrantless search and seizure had violated Entick’s property rights and personal liberty.

The Significance of the Case:

The case of Entick v Carrington is significant because it established the principle of individual freedom and privacy. The case affirmed that individuals have a right to be secure in their homes and that the government cannot interfere with those rights without lawful authority. The case has been a cornerstone of modern democratic societies ever since and has had a profound impact on the development of the law.

The case also highlighted the importance of the rule of law and the separation of powers. The case established that the judiciary has the power to declare government actions illegal if they are not authorized by law. The case affirmed the principle that no one is above the law, not even the Crown.

Finally, the case has had a lasting impact on the development of the law of torts. The case established the principle of the tort of trespass to goods, which is a fundamental concept in the law of property. The case also laid the groundwork for the development of the tort of invasion of privacy, which has become an essential aspect of modern legal systems.

In conclusion, the case of Entick v Carrington is a landmark case that established the principle of individual freedom and privacy. The case has had a profound impact on the development of the law and has become a cornerstone of modern democratic societies. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and the critical role that the judiciary plays in upholding those principles.

R v Dudley and Stephens (1884): The “Mignonette” case

TheLawStudent

R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) is a landmark case in the history of criminal law. The case is also known as the “Mignonette” case, named after the name of the boat involved in the incident. This case is significant because it addresses the question of necessity in extreme situations.

The Facts of the Case:

The incident took place in the year 1884. Four men – Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edward Brooks, and Richard Parker – set out on a journey from Southampton, England, to Sydney, Australia, on board the yacht Mignonette. While they were in the middle of the South Atlantic, the yacht was hit by a storm and was severely damaged. The four men survived the storm but were stranded in a lifeboat without food and water.

After several days of drifting, they were near to starvation, and all their attempts to catch fish or to attract the attention of passing ships had failed. The situation was becoming desperate, and the men became weak and delirious. Dudley and Stephens, the captain and first mate, eventually decided that they would have to resort to drastic measures to survive. They killed the weakest member of their crew, Richard Parker, and ate his flesh to stay alive.

The men were eventually rescued by a German ship, but upon their return to England, they were arrested and charged with the murder of Richard Parker.

The Trial and Verdict:

At the trial, Dudley and Stephens argued that they were justified in their actions because they had acted out of necessity. They claimed that they had no other option but to kill Parker, or they would all have died from starvation. The prosecution, however, argued that the act of killing and consuming a human being, even in the extreme circumstances, was still murder.

The jury found Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder, and they were sentenced to death. However, the case attracted a lot of attention, and there was a public outcry against the verdict. The case was eventually referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the verdict was upheld, but the sentence was commuted to six months in prison.

The Significance of the Case:

The case of R v Dudley and Stephens is significant because it raises the question of necessity in extreme situations. The case established the principle that “necessity is not a defense to murder.” In other words, even if a person is facing a life-threatening situation, they cannot kill another person to save their own life.

The case also highlighted the importance of upholding the rule of law, even in extreme situations. The fact that the men were charged and convicted of murder, even though they were in dire circumstances, shows that the law must be applied consistently and fairly.

Finally, the case has had a lasting impact on criminal law and the legal system in general. It has helped to shape the way that the law approaches cases of necessity and has influenced the development of the defense of duress.

In conclusion, the case of R v Dudley and Stephens is a fascinating and thought-provoking case that raises important questions about the limits of the law and the principle of necessity. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the rule of law, even in the most extreme situations.

R v DPP ex parte Kebilene (2000): The Landmark Case That Defined the Limits of Executive Power

TheLawStudent

R v DPP ex parte Kebilene is a landmark case in the history of English constitutional law. The case was decided by the House of Lords in 2000 and has had a significant impact on the relationship between the executive and the judiciary in the United Kingdom. In this case, the House of Lords established the principle that the courts have the power to review the legality of executive acts.

The Background of the Case

Mr. Kebilene was a foreign national who was arrested and detained by the police on suspicion of terrorism. He was held for three days without charge and was then released. Following his release, Mr. Kebilene applied for judicial review of his detention, claiming that it was unlawful and in breach of his human rights.

The Decision of the House of Lords

The House of Lords held that Mr. Kebilene’s detention was unlawful and in breach of his human rights. The court found that the police had acted beyond their powers and that the detention was not authorized by law. The House of Lords also held that the courts have the power to review the legality of executive acts and that the principle of the rule of law requires that the courts be able to review the actions of the executive.

The Significance of R v DPP ex parte Kebilene

R v DPP ex parte Kebilene was a landmark case in the development of constitutional law in the United Kingdom. The case established the principle that the courts have the power to review the legality of executive acts and that the rule of law requires that the courts be able to review the actions of the executive. The case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been instrumental in defining the limits of executive power in the United Kingdom.

The case is particularly significant in the context of human rights. The House of Lords held that Mr. Kebilene’s detention was in breach of his human rights, and the case has been cited in a number of subsequent cases involving human rights. The decision in R v DPP ex parte Kebilene has been instrumental in promoting the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom and has had a significant impact on the development of human rights law.

Conclusion

R v DPP ex parte Kebilene is a landmark case in the history of constitutional law in the United Kingdom. The case established the principle that the courts have the power to review the legality of executive acts and that the rule of law requires that the courts be able to review the actions of the executive. The case has had a significant impact on the development of human rights law and has been instrumental in promoting the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of the rule of law and the need for the courts to act as a check on executive power.

Duncan v Jones (1959): The Landmark Case That Defined the Scope of Negligence in Tort Law

TheLawStudent

Duncan v Jones is a landmark case in the history of tort law in the United Kingdom. The case was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1959 and remains an important case in the legal doctrine of negligence. In this case, the plaintiff, Mrs. Duncan, claimed damages from the defendant, Dr. Jones, for personal injury resulting from medical negligence. The case established the principle that a duty of care exists when a person, through their actions, creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others.

The Background of the Case

Mrs. Duncan sought medical treatment from Dr. Jones for a minor injury. During the course of treatment, Dr. Jones negligently punctured Mrs. Duncan’s eye, causing her to lose sight in that eye. Mrs. Duncan claimed damages from Dr. Jones for personal injury, alleging that he was negligent in his treatment of her.

The Decision of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal upheld Mrs. Duncan’s claim, ruling that Dr. Jones was liable for the injury that he had caused. The court held that a duty of care existed in the relationship between a doctor and his patient, and that Dr. Jones had breached that duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in his treatment of Mrs. Duncan. The court also held that the test for determining the existence of a duty of care was whether the defendant’s actions created a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff.

The Significance of Duncan v Jones

Duncan v Jones was a landmark case in the development of the doctrine of negligence in tort law. The case established the principle that a duty of care exists when a person, through their actions, creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others. This principle has been applied in a wide range of situations, including medical negligence, product liability, and environmental pollution.

The case also clarified the scope of the duty of care in medical negligence cases. The decision in Duncan v Jones emphasized the importance of the doctor-patient relationship and the need for doctors to exercise reasonable care in their treatment of patients. The case serves as a reminder of the duty of care owed by professionals to their clients and the need for professionals to exercise the highest standards of care in their dealings with the public.

Conclusion

Duncan v Jones remains an important case in the history of tort law in the United Kingdom. The case established the principle that a duty of care exists when a person, through their actions, creates a foreseeable risk of harm to others and remains a cornerstone of the legal doctrine of negligence. Its significance lies in the protection it affords to the public, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unreasonable risks and that justice is served. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of the duty of care owed by professionals to their clients and the need for professionals to exercise the highest standards of care in their dealings with the public.

Woolmington v DPP (1935): The Landmark Case That Shaped the Burden of Proof in Criminal Law

TheLawStudent

Woolmington v DPP is a landmark case in the history of criminal law in the United Kingdom. It was decided by the House of Lords in 1935 and remains one of the most important cases in the legal doctrine of burden of proof. In this case, the defendant, Charles Augustus Woolmington, was charged with murder and appealed against his conviction on the grounds that the judge’s instructions to the jury regarding the burden of proof were incorrect. The case established the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Background of the Case

Charles Augustus Woolmington was charged with murder after killing his wife in a fit of rage. At his trial, the judge instructed the jury that if they had any doubt about the defendant’s guilt, they must find him guilty. Woolmington appealed his conviction on the grounds that the judge’s instructions were incorrect and that the burden of proof should always be on the prosecution. The appeal was heard by the House of Lords, the highest court in the land at the time.

The Decision of the House of Lords

The House of Lords upheld Woolmington’s appeal and quashed his conviction, ruling that the judge’s instructions to the jury were incorrect. Lord Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, delivered the leading judgment in the case, stating that “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defense of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.” This principle became known as the “golden thread” of the English criminal law and remains a fundamental principle of the legal system to this day.

The Significance of Woolmington v DPP

Woolmington v DPP was a landmark case in the development of the doctrine of burden of proof in criminal law. The case established the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and that this burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial. This principle is considered to be one of the keystones of the criminal justice system and ensures that the accused is protected from wrongful conviction.

The case also clarified the role of the judge in instructing the jury on the law and the importance of clear and accurate instructions. The decision in Woolmington v DPP emphasized the need for the judge to give clear and concise instructions to the jury, ensuring that the jury is able to understand the law and make a fair and impartial decision.

Conclusion

Woolmington v DPP remains one of the most important cases in the history of criminal law in the United Kingdom. The case established the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and remains a cornerstone of the criminal justice system. Its significance lies in the protection it affords to the accused, ensuring that they are not wrongly convicted and that justice is served. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear and accurate instructions to the jury, and the need for the judge to play a central role in ensuring that justice is done.

Donoghue v Stevenson: A Landmark Case That Changed Tort Law

TheLawStudent

Donoghue v Stevenson, also known as the “Paisley snail case,” is a landmark legal case in tort law that was heard in 1932 by the House of Lords in Scotland. This case changed the way that negligence claims were made in the UK and had a profound impact on the development of the law of tort. In this blog post, we will examine the case of Donoghue v Stevenson and its significance in legal history.

The Facts of the Case

In 1928, Mrs. May Donoghue was drinking a ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Scotland. She discovered a decomposed snail in the bottle, which made her ill. She sued the manufacturer, David Stevenson, for negligence, claiming that he had failed to take reasonable care in the preparation of the ginger beer.

The Decision of the Court

The case was heard by the House of Lords, and Lord Atkin delivered the leading judgment. Lord Atkin held that a manufacturer of a product owed a duty of care to the consumer, and that this duty of care extended to those who might be affected by the product, including the consumer. He stated that the manufacturer had a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the product was fit for its intended purpose, and that it was free from defects.

The Significance of Donoghue v Stevenson

Donoghue v Stevenson had a profound impact on the development of the law of tort in the UK. It established the principle of the duty of care and established that manufacturers had a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that their products were safe for consumption. This case paved the way for a number of other important cases in tort law, such as Anns v Merton London Borough Council and Hedley Byrne v Heller.

Conclusion

Donoghue v Stevenson was a landmark case in tort law that changed the way that negligence claims were made in the UK. Its significance cannot be overstated, as it established the principle of the duty of care and helped to shape the law of tort in the UK. This case remains an important part of legal history and continues to be studied and discussed by legal scholars today.

Russell v Northern Bank Development Corpn Ltd [1992]

TheLawStudent

Russell v Northern Bank Development Corpn Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 588 is the leading case on the subject of provisions in the Articles vs. provisions in the Shareholders’ Agreement.

Facts of the case

In this case the claimant was a party to a Shareholders’ Agreement to which the company was also a party. The agreement included a clause preventing any increase in the share capital of the company without the written consent of all the parties to the agreement.

An action was brought against the other parties for an injunction restraining them from increasing the share capital of the company.

The defendants argued that the agreement was void in its entirety both as regards the company and as between the shareholders inter se because it amounted to an unlawful and invalid fetter on the company’s statutory powers (namely, the power of a company to alter its articles of association by special resolution).

Judgment

It was held that an agreement outside the Articles between shareholders inter se as to how they would vote on a resolution to alter the articles was enforceable in so far as it amounted merely to a private agreement as to the exercise by the shareholders of their respective voting rights and an injunction could be granted to prevent a shareholder from breaching that agreement. A Shareholders’ Agreement did not constitute an unlawful and invalid fetter on the company’s statutory power to increase its share capital. The House of Lords held that the agreement between the company and the shareholders, which was void as being contrary to statute, could be severed from the agreement between the shareholders which was valid and enforceable.

Significance of the case

The significance of this case is that it puts beyond question the shareholders’ freedom to contract in respect of voting rights.