In Judging Prorogation, UK Supreme Court Marks Evolution, Not Revolution, in Law
Despite the political significance, last week’s judgment does not signal a newly activist court.
The UK Supreme Court’s ruling last Wednesday has, at least temporarily, scuppered the prime minister’s plans to limit parliamentary debate before the looming Brexit deadline. Some of the prime minister’s allies have attacked the ruling as a ‘constitutional coup’. But a close reading reveals that the court has stayed within its remit to interpret, rather than make, the law.
In a carefully reasoned judgment, the court emphasised that the case was not about Brexit. But the judges certainly did not shy away from the extraordinary nature of the matters before it, noting that such factual situations have ‘never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again… But our law is used to rising to such challenges and supplies us with the legal tools to enable us to reason to a solution.’
The key question before the court was whether the prime minister’s decision to seek prorogation was ‘justiciable’ i.e. amenable to being reviewed by a court. The English and Scottish courts earlier on in these proceedings had come, dramatically, to opposing views on this.
The Supreme Court was not dissuaded by the inherently political considerations involved in the prime minister’s decision, stating that while ‘courts cannot decide political questions, the fact that a legal dispute concerns the conduct of politicians, or arises from a matter of political controversy, has never been sufficient reason for the courts to refuse to consider it’.
The court went on to emphasise that the Crown’s remaining prerogative powers (exercised on the advice of the government or directly by ministers) have long been subject to judicial scrutiny; such oversight is essential to guarding the separation of powers underpinning the UK’s constitution.
So far, so conventional. The full bench of the Supreme Court was required to grapple, though, with a prerogative power that had never been tested before in the courts. And so they delved back to the 1611 Case of Proclamations: ‘the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allow him’. In the court’s view, the legal issue to be resolved was the scope of the power to prorogue (the existence of this particular prerogative not being in dispute).
With no caselaw available to provide direct guidance on this question, the court, instead, relied on two fundamental principles of the UK’s constitution – parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability. What would be the logical consequence of an unlimited power to prorogue? The ability to shut parliament permanently.
The conclusion: this particular prerogative power had limits. The court held that:
“A decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch 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.”
Having come to this conclusion, the court was left to examine what justification had in fact been given, noting that the prime minister’s motives were irrelevant. It noted that no clear reason had been given – the relevant documents were all concerned with preparing for the Queen’s speech.
Noting evidence on normal practice for such preparations, including from a former prime minister, the court found it ‘impossible… to conclude…that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks’.
The court’s decision was neither inevitable nor a radical departure from legal tradition. It represents the gradual evolution of the long-established legal principle that the crown’s powers are set by the law and supervised by the courts.
Courts have traditionally been reticent to rule on prerogative powers which are ‘high politics’ by nature – classic examples include declaring war and negotiating treaties. In recent years, though, the judiciary has shown a growing confidence to grapple with the contours of those prerogative powers that remain. Deference is still shown when looking at how those powers have been used as opposed to the limits of the prerogative in question.
The Supreme Court ruling won’t reassure those who worry about the emergence of an activist court willing to wade (improperly) into the political arena. Nor will it necessarily bring comfort to those anxious about an unwritten constitution in an era where political conventions are fast unravelling.
But divisive court rulings are nothing new, nor are ministerial outbursts about inconvenient judgments. In the current environment, politicians should take particular care not to send mixed messages which undermine the independence of the UK’s judiciary. Public trust in British institutions is dangerously low and the UK can ill-afford further damage to its reputation as a country steeped in democracy and the rule of law.
Latest News from
COVID-19 Brings Human Rights into Focus09/04/2020 15:10:00
With a reawakened sense of our shared humanity and vulnerability, and the benefits of collective action, this crisis may translate into a comeback for human rights as a popular idea.
Supporting NHS Cybersecurity During COVID-19 is Vital06/04/2020 14:33:00
The current crisis is an opportunity for the UK government to show agility in how it deals with cyber threats and how it cooperates with the private sector in creating cyber resilience.
Predictions and Policymaking: Complex Modelling Beyond COVID-1902/04/2020 15:20:00
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential of complex systems modelling for policymaking but it is crucial to also understand its limitations.
COVID-19 Impact on Refugees is Also Political31/03/2020 14:20:00
The spread of coronavirus in the Levant puts Syrian as well as other refugees and internally displaced people at particular risk because of the policies and practices of the authorities.
In a COVID-19 World, Russia Sticks to International Distancing30/03/2020 17:08:00
While a global response is needed against the coronavirus crisis, Russia does not see it as in its interests to contribute – and in fact the Kremlin is using the crisis to further destabilise the world.
The G20’s Pandemic Moment26/03/2020 12:20:00
The planned emergency meeting of the G20 leaders could be the beginning of smart, thoughtful, collective steps to get beyond this challenging moment in history.
Chinese Investment and the BRI in Sri Lanka25/03/2020 13:10:00
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is having profound impacts on recipient countries. This paper examines the benefits and costs of the BRI and its projects to Sri Lanka and the lessons that may improve future BRI projects in Sri Lanka and elsewhere.
Coronavirus: Expert Advice Given to the UK Parliament19/03/2020 16:51:00
Professor David R Harper CBE gives evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on issues relating to the UK government's response to coronavirus.
The Development of Libyan Armed Groups Since 2014: Community Dynamics and Economic Interests19/03/2020 10:48:00
This paper explores armed group–community relations in Libya and the sources of revenue that have allowed armed groups to grow in power and influence. It draws out the implications for policy and identifies options for mitigating conflict dynamics.