Prorogation and Parliamentary Accountability
R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister; Cherry v. Advocate General
Court: UK Supreme Court, Westminster | Year: 2019
The UK Supreme Court held that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, void, and of no effect.
R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister; Cherry v. Advocate General for Scotland is another major Westminster constitutional case.
The dispute concerned the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament during the Brexit period. The Court examined whether the use of prerogative power frustrated Parliament’s constitutional functions.
The Supreme Court held that the prorogation was unlawful, void, and of no effect, strengthening the principle that executive power is subject to constitutional limits.
Key Learning Points
- Confirmed judicial review of prerogative power.
- Protected Parliament’s constitutional role.
- Held the prorogation unlawful and void.
- A strong comparative case on executive accountability.
Intern Takeaway
When analysing executive power, ask whether the action prevents legislative scrutiny or weakens constitutional accountability.
Reference: Read source material
