“Prime Minister's five-week prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and void.”
In August 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks until 14 October, shortly before the Brexit deadline. Gina Miller and others challenged this as an improper attempt to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit policy during a critical period.
Whether the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament was justiciable, and if so, whether the extended prorogation was lawful given its effect on Parliament's constitutional functions?
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the prorogation was unlawful and void. The decision was justiciable as it concerned the limits of executive power, and the prorogation frustrated Parliament without reasonable justification.
This landmark case established important precedent on the justiciability of prerogative powers and constitutional limits on executive authority over Parliament. It's crucial for understanding separation of powers and constitutional accountability in the UK system.
You're reading the free summary of R (Miller) v Prime Minister (Prorogation). Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.