Tag: R (Miller) and Others v The Prime Minister (Miller 2)
-
Michael Foran: Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Politics of Law-making
Parliamentary sovereignty has traditionally been understood to mean that Parliament is free to enact legislation on any area of law that it chooses, and that Acts of the U.K. Parliament take precedence over subordinate legislation, regulation, or common law rule. Understood this way, parliamentary sovereignty is a constitutional principle that is couched explicitly in legal…
-
Craig Prescott: Harry and Meghan, Regency, Counsellors of State and a “Slimmed Down” Royal Family
Introduction On 19th January, after discussions within the Royal Family, it was announced that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will step back from royal duties, no longer receive public funds, or ‘formally represent the Queen’. Neither will they use their HRH titles, and more generally they will not be classed as ‘working members of…
-
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…
-
Jefferi Hamzah Sendut: The Prorogation Case: Proportionality in All but Name?
The place of proportionality review in UK administrative law has been the subject of considerable doctrinal debate. This post argues that the Supreme Court’s Cherry/Miller (No 2) judgment should be understood as an application of proportionality as a common law ground of substantive review. Proportionality review is no longer confined to cases involving the Human…
-
Paul Yowell: Is Miller (No 2) the UK’s Bush v Gore?
Miller (No 2) and Bush v Gore (2000) have something in common. Both cases featured judicial intervention in politics and basic questions of constitutional power. Both resulted in controversial outcomes that provoked popular suspicion about the personal motives of justices. The US Supreme Court was visibly divided, but the unanimity of the UK Supreme Court…