Tag: Miller II/Cherry
-
Leah Trueblood: Judicial Review of Prorogation in Canada: The Applicability of Miller/Cherry v Prime Minister to MacKinnon v Canada
In the opening lines of Miller/Cherry, Lady Hale and Lord Reed, giving the unanimous judgment of the court, say that the case ‘arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to ever arise again.’ The case, they said, is a ‘one off.’ [1] One of the arguments raised by the Applicants in…
-
Jacob Eisler: The Elections Act in Uncertain Times: Democracy, Partisanship, and the Uncodified Constitution
The Elections Act 2022 – finally law after a long and contentious development in the Commons and the Lords – implements a number of controversial measures. The ID provision requires that persons present a photographic identification at the polls. This has raised concerns of suppressing the vote of economically and socially vulnerable groups who may…
-
Jacob Eisler: Voter ID and the Elections Bill 2021: Legislative Manipulation of Democratic Procedure and the Limits of Judicial Review
The Elections Bill 2021, as of the date of publication for the House of Commons Committee stage, advances a variety of changes to the regulation of elections and the practice of voting in the UK. Of the reforms, one controversially reshapes the practical experience of voting for most citizens. A new voter ID requirement will…
-
Max Taylor: The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill: Missed Opportunities
The newly introduced Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (“the Bill”) – like the Draft Fixed-term Parliaments Act (Repeal) Bill which preceded it – is a missed opportunity. It has failed to unify and define the scope and exercise of the powers of proroguing and dissolving Parliament, in one statute, which were in need of clarification post-Miller II. Now that…
-
Adam Perry: Enforcing Principles, Enforcing Conventions
Did the UK Supreme Court enforce a constitutional convention in Miller (No 2)? Most writers say no. I say yes. Miller (No 2) I won’t go through the case in detail. For my purposes three points matter. First, the UKSC says that there is a constitutional ‘principle of Parliamentary accountability’. It gives three examples of…
-
David Dennis: Llewellyn, Hart and Miller 2
The decision in Miller 2 has been described by Martin Loughlin as effecting a paradigmatic shift in constitutional law, displacing constitutional review based on common law reasoning of case law and precedent to one based on some overreaching framework of constitutional principles of which the Court acts as guardian. Loughlin’s description of two conflicting conceptions…
-
Tanzil Chowdhury: Miller (No 2), the Principle-isation of Ministerial Accountability and Military Deployments
Has the court in Miller (No 2) done the very thing it said it wouldn’t do in Miller (No 1)? Has it given legal enforceability to the constitutional convention of ministerial accountability? Several authors appear to suggest that is has (here, here and here). Indeed, conventions were given rather peculiar judicial treatment in Miller (No…
-
Benedict Douglas: Brexit as a Revolutionary Constitutional Moment
We can define our identity as individuals in three ways: through our choices, by the duties we owe, and by the community of which we are a member. Historically individuals have been implicitly defined within the British Constitution, law and society by their duties. Within the law are the legal duties of the private law…
-
Michael Detmold: The Supreme Court and the Executive Power of History
Introduction The best Constitution in the world has, through its highest court, over-reached in two fundamental ways: it has founded its constitutional thought on a slipping meaning of ‘Parliament’ – its most important constitutional word. And it has failed to understand history. By this second claim, I do not mean that the history it has…
-
Roger Masterman and Se-shauna Wheatle: Miller/Cherry and Constitutional Principle
In an essay published in Elliott, Varuhas and Wilson Stark (eds), The Unity of Public Law? Doctrinal, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, we examined Lord Neuberger’s use of constitutional principle-based reasoning in R (Evans) v Attorney General. In that decision, Lord Neuberger – with whom Lords Kerr and Reed were in agreement – employed the pan-jurisdictional…