Constitutional 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.