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.