header-logo header-logo

27 August 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Is proroguing of Parliament foul play?

Michael Zander reacts to the announcement that Parliament is to be prorogued on 10 September

There are two ways that a parliamentary session can be brought to an end—dissolution followed by a General Election or prorogation by the Crown. (“Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases.” (Erskine May, 2019, p165))

Dissolution is controlled by the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which provides that the period of a Parliament between general elections is five years unless  at least two-thirds of MPs vote for an earlier dissolution or the government loses a vote of confidence.

Erskine May defines a session as “the period of time between the meeting of a Parliament, whether after a prorogation or dissolution, and its prorogation” (2019, p164). The 2011 Act says nothing about the length of sessions.

Sessions are of an indeterminate length. Prior to the 2011 Act, sessions generally ran from October

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll