On 24 September, the eleven-justice panel of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the prerogative power of prorogation was justiciable and the ongoing prorogation of Parliament was both unlawful and void. The court utilised a three-prong test in determining the case: [33]

Sweeney, Christopher (12 November 1975). "Australia in turmoil as Whitlam is fired". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 1 May 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019.Bowcott, Owen (12 September 2019b). "Northern Irish court dismisses case against no-deal Brexit". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 30 January 2020 . Retrieved 24 September 2019. A Brief Chronology of the House of Commons" (PDF). Factsheets. House of Commons Information Office. General Series (G3). August 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 April 2016 . Retrieved 12 September 2019.

For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course. The judgment is significant for its treatment of the principle of justiciability, its interpretation of elements of the British constitution, and its potential implications for the separation of powers. In a Financial Times article published the day after the judgment, Catherine Barnard, a professor of European law at the University of Cambridge, called it "a judgment of huge importance with major implications for our system of government" in which the court set down a ruling to stop constitutional players "who don't play by the rules". Constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor, professor at King's College, London said that the judgment reaffirmed parliamentary sovereignty. [34] Cambridge professor Mark Elliott, former legal adviser to the House of Lords' Constitution Committee, described the judgment as both "an orthodox application of constitutional principle" and a legal landmark for transforming the principle of parliamentary sovereignty into "hard and novel limits on executive authority". [35]On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim finding the issue not justiciable. The Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect. Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Issues What could they possibly be looking for, you’re wondering. And what’s gotten them as excited as a five-year-old in a candy store? It’s clear they couldn’t find what they were looking for. Helm, Toby; Stewart, Heather (24 August 2019). "Boris Johnson seeks legal advice on five-week parliament closure ahead of Brexit". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 August 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019.

Bennett, Martyn (29 August 2019). "The historical precedent for resisting the proroguing of parliament". New Statesman. Archived from the original on 25 September 2019 . Retrieved 25 September 2019. a b Blitz, James; Croft, Jane (25 September 2019). "Parliament the winner in prorogation case, say lawyers". Financial Times. London. Archived from the original on 26 September 2019 . Retrieved 27 September 2019. Nelson, Sara C (10 September 2019). "Parliament Prorogued: Scuffles And Bursts of Song As MPs Protest Shutdown". HuffPost UK.

Cite This Work

It was obvious to the Court that in the present context, the“Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account”.[55] The Judges distinguished motivefrom reasonable justification. This elevated the question of what evidence had been submitted to the Court. Sir John had submitted a witness statement setting out his experience. As Lord Garnier QC put it in his oral submissions: “We are, I think, unique in this case for having put in a witness statement about how the power is actually exercised. This is the unchallenged evidence of a former Prime Minister in this case.”The Court tooknote of this:“The unchallenged evidence of Sir John Major is clear. The work on the Queen’s Speech varies according to the size of the programme. But a typical time is four to six days.”[59] In the absence of evidence to the contrary as to why a prorogation of the suggested length had been necessary, the Court concluded that the prorogation of this length at this particular time had not been justified and was unlawful. Remedy Elliott, Mark (24 September 2019). "The Supreme Court's judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2): A new approach to constitutional adjudication?". Public Law for Everyone. Archived from the original on 26 September 2019 . Retrieved 29 September 2019. In light of the third issue, it was ruled that this was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech; it prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role between the end of the summer recess and the Brexit deadline on 31st October. While prorogued, it was stated, neither House could meet or pass legislation, or debate Government policy. The exceptional circumstances of the prorogation were also considered, in that it took place during a time of fundamental change to the UK constitution with the 31 st October exit day. It was ruled that Parliament had a right to a voice in how that change comes about. No justification for taking the action of prorogation in this instance was given before the Court. In light of this, the Court concluded that 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. In the absence of legislation which provides otherwise, the quorum for a Privy Council meeting is three. [12] R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and Others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41at para. 50(24 September 2019)