header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 October 2019 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7858 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Monarchs, judges & controversial prime ministers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
8704
The UKSC’s reversal of the High Court’s decision on prorogation is not in keeping with time-honoured principle, says Dr Michael Arnheim

In the recent unanimous bombshell decision by the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) sitting en banc 11 members strong, the court ruled that the prime minister’s advice to the queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’, that the queen’s subsequent order in council ordering prorogation—an exercise of the royal prerogative—was accordingly also ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’, and that the prorogation ceremony itself was ‘as if the Commissioners (the queen’s emissaries) had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect,’ R (Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, [2019] All ER (D) 61 (Sep), para [69].

Case of Proclamations

In reaching this decision, the UKSC placed considerable reliance on the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74. The facts of the case were as follows. King James VI and

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026—the winners!
The winners of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2026 have now been announced, marking another outstanding celebration of excellence, innovation, and impact across the legal profession
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll