miller no.2

Question 1

1. Material Facts

Answer 1

In 2019, PM Boris Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks during the Brexit crisis. The justification was to prepare a new legislative agenda, but the effect was to prevent parliamentary scrutiny. Gina Miller and Joanna Cherry challenged the advice as an abuse of royal prerogative.

Question 2

2. Legal Questions

Answer 2

1. Was the Prime Minister’s advice justiciable?
2. Was it unlawful for frustrating Parliament’s constitutional functions without justification?

Question 3

3. Arguments

Answer 3

Claimants: The prorogation suppressed scrutiny and violated parliamentary sovereignty. Courts should intervene where core constitutional principles are at stake.
Government: The matter was political, not legal — prerogative power over prorogation was historically non-justiciable.

Question 4

4. Decision & Holding

Answer 4

The UKSC unanimously ruled the advice was unlawful, void, and of no effect. The prorogation frustrated Parliament without justification, breaching constitutional principles. It was therefore null.

Question 5

5. Legal Reasoning

Answer 5

Justiciability: Courts can review prerogative powers when constitutional principles are at stake.
Legal limit: Executive cannot frustrate Parliament without reasonable justification.
No such justification was provided → advice was unlawful.

Question 6

6. Dissenting Judgments

Answer 6

None. The judgment was unanimous (11–0) — significant for judicial unity in defending the constitution.

Question 7

7. Related Authorities

Answer 7

GCHQ [1985] – prerogative powers are reviewable
Miller 1 [2017] – Parliament must authorise executive action
De Keyser’s [1920] – statute displaces prerogative
Evans [2015] – courts reject arbitrary executive power

Question 8

8. Impact of the Case

Answer 8

Reinforced parliamentary sovereignty
Expanded judicial review of executive action
Asserted rule of law — PM not above the law
Sparked debate on judicial legitimacy vs executive power

Question 9

9. Societal Context

Answer 9

The case arose during Brexit, amid concerns of executive overreach. The Court reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic accountability, restoring public trust in the constitution’s ability to withstand political crisis.

Question 10

10. Critical Evaluation

Answer 10

Miller 2 is a constitutional landmark. It confirmed that constitutional principles limit executive power. In an uncodified system, judicial review is essential to uphold the rule of law — even at the highest levels of government.