R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (Cherry/Miller No 2)
[2019] UKSC 41
Ratio Decidendi
The Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was justiciable and unlawful. Prorogation is unlawful if it has the effect of frustrating Parliament's ability to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
Fapte
In September 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks during the period leading up to the UK's scheduled departure from the EU. Gina Miller and others challenged the prorogation as an unlawful abuse of the prerogative power. The Scottish Inner House (in Cherry v Advocate General) found the prorogation unlawful; the English High Court declined to intervene.
Rezumatul hotărârii
The Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of eleven justices, unanimously held that the prorogation was unlawful, void, and of no effect. Lady Hale and Lord Reed held that the court could review the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's advice, and that prorogation would be unlawful if it had the effect of frustrating Parliament without reasonable justification. The five-week prorogation had this effect and no justification had been put forward.
Citate cheie
"The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
— Lady Hale PSC and Lord Reed DPSC
Tratament ulterior
A landmark constitutional decision confirming the justiciability of prerogative powers and the sovereignty of Parliament.