Studied by 0 people
The 2019 Prorogation case (Miller v The PM)
on 29 Aug - BOJO temporarily suspended Parliament.
Bojo and the govt argued that the prorogation was a routine one that ordinarily follows the selection of a new PM
but crictics argues that the prorogation was intended to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the govt’s Brexit plans and to make it harder for Parliament to block a no - deal Brexit
+
The SC unanimously ruled that the prorogation was = unlawful, reversing the prorogation and reinstating parliament
The SC noted that the sovereignty of Parliament would be undermined ‘as the foundational principle of our constitution’ if prerogative power to prorouge could be used to ‘prevent P from excersising its legislative authority’
=
this shows how the SC was able to check the power of the govt and uphold parliamentary sovereignty and the power of P to scruntinse the govt.
2- The 2016 Article 50 case
Gina Miller argued that the govt couldn’t give notice of Britain’s intention to leave the EU under article 50 without Parliament giving it’s approval.
the govt disagreed and argued it could use its executive powers to make or unmake treaties with foreign committees.
by an 8-3 majority, the court decided against the govt, arguing the removal of rights conferred by P and that P should therefore have to give its consent
+
the case also ruled that the Scottish, Welsh and NI p’s had no rogjts to veto an AofP giving consent to article 50
This therefore also shows how the SC i sbale to check the power of the executive and iphold parilamentary sovereginty.
Note 
Flashcard (85)