header-logo header-logo

The prorogation judgment —a step too far?

17 October 2019 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7860 / Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
9387
Nicholas Dobson shares his analysis of the recent Supreme Court prorogation decision—right but wrong?

Whatever your view of the controversial decision of the Supreme Court on 24 September 2019 in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, it is undoubtedly correct in every minute particular. That is, of course, despite the criticism of many respected constitutional and other lawyers including Professor John Finnis FBA QC (Hon), Professor Emeritus of Law & Legal Philosophy in the University of Oxford). He considered the judgment to have been ‘a misconceived review’, an ‘historic mistake’, ‘wholly unjustified by law’ and one which has caused ‘damage . . .to our constitutional doctrine and settlement’ (see The unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court’s prorogation judgment, Policy Exchange 2019).

But why the decision is completely correct is clear from the title of the determining body. For this is, of course, the Supreme Court, whose judgment on the issue is definitive. And it was a strong decision

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

DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
Artificial intelligence may be revolutionising the law, but its misuse could wreck cases and careers, warns Clare Arthurs of Penningtons Manches Cooper in this week's NLJ
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll