R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
http://dbpedia.org/resource/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
xsd:integer
61803555
xsd:integer
1124225139
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
[[#
rdf:langString
[2019] CSIH 49]]
rdf:langString
[2019] EWHC 2381 ]]
rdf:langString
right
xsd:gMonthDay
--09-19
xsd:integer
2019
xsd:gMonthDay
--09-24
xsd:integer
2019
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland
rdf:langString
R v The Prime Minister
rdf:langString
The use of the prerogative power of prorogation is justiciable. The Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, and the resulting Order in Council, were unlawful because they had "the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive". The order was void, and Parliament was not legally prorogued.
rdf:langString
no
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
rdf:langString
R v The Prime Minister
rdf:langString
Unanimous
rdf:langString
For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course.
<perCent>
35.0
rdf:langString
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful. On 24 September 2019, in a unanimous decision by eleven justices, the court found that the matter was justiciable, and that Johnson's advice was unlawful; this upheld ruling of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Cherry, and overturned the High Court of Justice ruling in Miller. As a result, the Order in Council permitting the prorogation was null and of no effect and Parliament had, in fact, not been prorogued.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
[[#
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
62199
