Miller v The Prime Minister

Definition

Miller v The Prime Minister was a landmark UK Supreme Court case in 2019 that ruled the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was unlawful. This case highlighted the role of the judiciary in maintaining parliamentary sovereignty and the limits of executive power within the UK's constitutional framework.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing Parliament's ability to carry out its constitutional functions.
2. The case stemmed from concerns that prorogation was used as a tactic to limit parliamentary debate on Brexit, raising questions about the balance of power between the government and Parliament.
3. This ruling marked a significant moment for the judiciary, showcasing its ability to check executive power and uphold democratic principles within the UK constitution.
4. The judgment emphasized that no Prime Minister is above the law and that all government actions must be justified under constitutional norms.
5. Following the ruling, Parliament reconvened, and the case reinforced public interest in how government powers are exercised and scrutinized.

Review Questions

• How did Miller v The Prime Minister affirm the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to executive power?
  • Miller v The Prime Minister underscored parliamentary sovereignty by demonstrating that even the Prime Minister cannot unilaterally override or suspend Parliament's functions without lawful justification. The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted that proroguing Parliament in a manner that prevents it from carrying out its duties was an unlawful exercise of executive power. This case affirmed that governmental authority must align with constitutional principles, thereby reinforcing Parliament's role in decision-making.
• Discuss the implications of Miller v The Prime Minister on future relationships between the judiciary and executive in the UK.
  • The implications of Miller v The Prime Minister are profound for the relationship between the judiciary and executive in the UK. The Supreme Court's ruling establishes a precedent that empowers the judiciary to review executive actions, ensuring they comply with legal and constitutional standards. This case signifies a shift towards greater accountability of government actions, reinforcing the idea that no branch of government operates without checks and balances. Consequently, it may lead to increased scrutiny of executive decisions moving forward.
• Evaluate how Miller v The Prime Minister reflects broader themes of democratic governance and accountability in the UK's constitutional system.
  • Miller v The Prime Minister reflects critical themes of democratic governance and accountability by highlighting how legal frameworks can protect parliamentary processes from potential overreach by the executive branch. By ruling against prorogation as an attempt to circumvent democratic debate, the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of active parliamentary involvement in key national issues like Brexit. This case illustrates how judicial intervention can safeguard democratic principles, ensuring that government actions remain transparent and subject to public scrutiny, ultimately promoting accountability within the constitutional framework.

Related terms

Prorogation: The act of discontinuing a session of Parliament without dissolving it, typically carried out by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Parliamentary Sovereignty: The principle that Parliament has the supreme legal authority in the UK, allowing it to create or end any law, and that no other body can challenge its decisions.

Judicial Review: The process by which courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they are lawful and adhere to constitutional principles.