header-logo header-logo

Rogue prorogue?

12 September 2019 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7855 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Nicholas Dobson mulls recent Parliamentary shenanigans & wonders how the dice will fall in the Supreme Court

  • Traces the challenges to the prime minister’s prorogation decision in both Scotland and London.

‘What’s all this fuss about Parliament and The Pogues?’, some may have wondered. However, when on 28 August 2019 news broke that Parliament was to be prorogued (stood down for a specified period) by Order in Council (ie the Queen on advice of the Privy Council), it was nothing to do with the Celtic punk band. The kerfuffle was caused by the nature and context of the Parliamentary suspension ordered by Royal Prerogative. This is the inherent power of the Crown to act on matters for which Parliament has not legislated. Or as constitutional jurist, A V Dicey put it: ‘[T]he residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority, which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown.’ So (per Dicey), the ‘prerogative is the name of the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority’.

The Queen’s Order

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll