Introduction
Ending a parliamentary session, the act of stopping a session without dissolving Parliament, is a recognized authority of the Crown. This authority comes from the Royal Prerogative, a set of executive powers historically held by the monarch but now used by the government. The legal issue in R (on the application of Miller) v Prime Minister focuses on the scope of this authority and whether its use can be examined in court. Specifically, the case asks whether ending a session that blocks Parliament from carrying out its constitutional duties is lawful. The Supreme Court’s ruling sets out a clear structure for the relationship between the government and Parliament.
The Prime Minister's Advice and the Question of Judicial Review
The case began when the Prime Minister advised the Queen to end Parliament’s session for five weeks. A main point was whether this advice could be evaluated by courts. Historically, actions under the Royal Prerogative were seen as beyond judicial review. However, the Supreme Court in Miller (No. 1) [2017] UKSC 5 had ruled that using prerogative powers impacting basic rights or constitutional rules could be reviewed. Following this earlier decision, the Court in Miller (No. 2) decided the advice to end the session was not exempt from legal examination.
Ending a Session and Parliament’s Role
Parliament’s central duty in lawmaking is a key part of the UK’s constitutional system. The Supreme Court studied how ending a session limits Parliament’s ability to pass laws, monitor government actions, and ensure accountability. A lengthy closure could seriously hinder these constitutional duties. The Court assessed whether the specific closure’s duration and timing caused such damage.
The Legal Test and Limits of Executive Power
The rule that government actions must not weaken basic rights or constitutional rules without clear parliamentary approval guided the Court’s analysis. The Court applied this to the use of the power to end a session. It concluded that if ending a session blocks Parliament’s primary duties without valid reasons, it breaks this rule and becomes unlawful.
The Supreme Court’s Findings and the Unlawful Closure
The Court examined evidence, including the closure’s length and the government’s stated justifications. It decided the closure prevented Parliament from performing its constitutional roles as lawmaker and government overseer without adequate reasons. This finding was based on the unusually long closure and the lack of clear explanations, especially during a time of political urgency before the Brexit deadline. The Court ruled the closure had no legal effect.
The Importance of Miller (No. 2) for the UK’s Constitutional System
The Miller (No. 2) ruling clarified limits on using prerogative powers to end parliamentary sessions. It confirmed that even traditional prerogative actions can be reviewed by courts if they harm constitutional rules. The decision strengthens Parliament’s authority and emphasizes the courts’ duty in maintaining the UK’s constitutional order. It creates a clear test restricting government power to ensure Parliament can perform its necessary duties. The judgment cited Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74 on Royal Prerogative boundaries and Attorney-General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508 on statutory vs. prerogative authority.
Conclusion
The Miller (No. 2) ruling marks a key moment in UK constitutional law. The Court confirmed that ending parliamentary sessions can be reviewed by courts and defined strict limits on its use. By tying prerogative power to legal rules and Parliament’s role, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its role as protector of the constitution. This decision shapes the balance of power between government and Parliament, setting clear limits on executive action. It builds on Miller (No. 1) principles about the roles of government, Parliament, and courts, showing the ongoing development of constitutional rules in the UK.
