A Judgment on the Unlawful Prorogation of Parliament

Abstract

A finding by the Supreme Court has meant that the Parliamentary process, and so too parliamentary time for debate, has become crucial to the Brexit process, because an Act of is thus both the proving ground and the legal mechanism for any political strategy of the day on the issue of Brexit. The arithmetic of voting blocs in the House of Commons since the outcome of a General Election in the summer of 2017 was something that Theresa May, when Prime Minister, recognised but still tried, memorably without any success, to tackle head on. But Parliamentary procedure, rather than factional numbers, has appealed more as a weakness to target in the view of advisers to Boris Johnson (still Prime Minister at the time of writing). However, one constitutional ruse to heap pressure on Remain-inclined MPs in the Commons was an unusually lengthy prorogation (or suspension) of the routine proceedings of Parliament. This ruse was rumbled spectacularly in the hearings that led to the unanimous decision of eleven Justices of the UK Supreme Court in Miller No.2. In that resounding judgment, in the words of Lady Hale, the Supreme Court decided that Parliament is not prorogued - and never had been, as a matter of law.