The Miller Case Note

The following is my own work, and no AI has been used in its making.

Extracted from a Word Document.

Case Report on R (Miller) v Prime Minster (2019) UKSC 41

In August 2019, the Prime Minister advised the Queen to issue an Order in Council proroguing Parliament shortly before the UK’s scheduled exit from the EU on 31 October 2019. Miller, the appellant, sought judicial review, arguing the advice was beyond the constitutional limits of the royal prerogative.

The Supreme Court considered four questions. Firstly, was the Prime Minister’s advice justiciable? If so, what standard should govern its lawfulness? Applying that standard, was the advice lawful? Finally, what remedy should be granted if it was not? 

On 24 September 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously held the advice was justiciable and unlawful. The prorogation was declared to have no legal effect, and Parliament was deemed never to have been prorogued. 

The Court reaffirmed judges may determine the limits of prerogative powers, recalling the Case of Proclamations[1] on constitutional limits on prerogative powers and referring to Miller (No. 1),[2] which held that prerogative powers cannot violate the constitutional principle of parliamentary scrutiny without parliamentary approval. 

Judicial interpretations throughout this case hold great importance as to the role of the court as an interpreter of constitutional principles when political problems arise. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed that the powers of prerogative are limited as part of common law; thus, can be ruled on by the court, demonstrating executive accountability and how the rule of law remains even during a political crisis. 

By the court defining the limitations of prerogative powers, they created constitutional clarity. At a time of uncertainty, the judges protected the integrity of parliamentary sovereignty, demonstrating the resilience of Britain’s institutions against a modern political conflict.  

As to whether the Court’s decision should be binding, there exists two main arguments. 

Firstly, precedent. Miller v Prime Minister [2019],[3] is not the first instance in which courts have ruled on prerogative powers, such as the cases of The GCHQ case [1985],[4] and the Fire Brigades Union case [1995].[5] It would prove difficult to reconcile this ruling as not standing with the line of precedent which supports it. 

Secondly, principle. Denying justiciability of certain matters creates zones in which there is no judicial accountability for executive actions, violating the principle of equality before the law. Dismissal would also promote the idea of the judiciary as a body less constitutionally crucial than the other branches of government, creating situations where the executive and its, in the words of Lord Hailsham, ‘elective dictatorship’,[6] are the sole legitimate actors – undermining our constitutional settlement.  

Bibliography

Table of Cases 

Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74; 77 ER 1352 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL) R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, [2018] AC 61 R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, [2020] AC 373 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades’ Union [1995] 2 AC 513 (HL) 

Table of Secondary Sources 

Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, The Dilemma of Democracy: Diagnosis and Prescription (Collins 1978) ch 20, 125 

[1] Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74; 77 ER 1352 

[2] R (Miller) v Secretary of state for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 [2018] AC 61

[3] R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 [2020] AC 373

[4] Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, (HL) 

[5] R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte fire brigades’ union [1995] 2 AC 513 (HL)

[6] Lord Hailsham, The Dilemma of Democracy: Diagnosis and Prescription (Collins 1978) ch 20, 125