Since prorogation ‘never happened’ what happens next?

24 September 2019

The prorogation judicial reviews concerned the constitutional equilibrium between government, parliament and the courts. Today, an 11 member UK Supreme Court panel affirmed its centuries-old supervisory jurisdiction over acts of government and ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson’s government failed to advance any reasonable justification for proroguing parliament. The prorogation was therefore unlawful and ‘never happened’ so parliament is back in the game.

Testing the limits of the prerogative

In a remarkably straightforward judgment, the UK Supreme Court has confirmed with one voice that the courts have jurisdiction to decide the extent and limits of prerogative powers, including the power to prorogue parliament. Drawing upon fundamental constitutional principles, the court formulated a legal standard by which the limits of the power to prorogue must be determined, as follows (para 50):

“…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.” (emphasis added)

The court decided that this test could be applied in practice with no greater difficulty than determining many other factual matters routinely decided by the courts.

APPLYING THE TEST TO THE FACTS

Applying the above test, the UK Supreme Court concluded without hesitation that “of course” the prime minister’s recent action in proroguing parliament had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of parliament in holding the government to account. “This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech” and the effect on parliament was especially marked given how proximate the period of prorogation was to the UK’s potential exit from the EU on 31 October 2019. The court stated that “the circumstances here were…quite exceptional” and parliamentary scrutiny is especially vital in relation to events like Brexit, which are capable of fundamentally changing the UK constitution.

The next question was whether the government had a reasonable justification for prorogation in this case. The court prefaced its remarks by recognising that the government must be afforded “a great deal of latitude in making decisions of this nature” and therefore that only the reasons given were relevant, not any underlying motive. It nevertheless concluded that no reasonable justification had been put before it. In fact, “no reason was given for closing down Parliament for five weeks” even though [e]verything was focussed on the need for a new Queen’s Speech” (usually prorogation before a Queen’s Speech lasts just a few days). This and the apparent failure to consider obvious matters, like the relative merits of prorogation and calling a recess, led the court starkly to decide that (para 61):

“It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.”

The decision of the government not to put forward further documentary evidence (if it existed) or a witness statement may be regarded with hindsight as fatal to its case. We will never know whether there were good reasons for that decision. Was it perhaps out of fear that this might become one of those exceptionally rare judicial reviews where the witness – perhaps the prime minister himself – is called to give live evidence?

What was the constitutional basis of the decision?

In examining the limits of the prerogative to prorogue parliament, the UK Supreme Court stated that prerogative powers are only effective to the extent that they are compatible with legislation and common law principles, including constitutional principles. The court then considered the effect of the “foundational principle of our constitution” – parliamentary sovereignty. It determined that parliament cannot be prevented by the government through the use of the prerogative from legislating for as long as the government pleases. An unlimited power of prorogation is therefore incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty. The court recognised, however, that parliament is not permanently in session and modern prorogations for short periods are common, stating (para 45):

“There can be no question of such a [short] prorogation being incompatible with Parliamentary sovereignty: its effect on Parliament’s ability to exercise its legislative powers is relatively minor and uncontroversial.”

To establish the limits of the prerogative, the court therefore turned to a second principle “no less fundamental to our constitution” – parliamentary accountability. It was on this that the outcome hinged. The court observed that (para 48):

“…the longer that Parliament stands prorogued, the greater the risk that responsible government may be replaced by unaccountable government: the antithesis of the democratic model”.

Based on these considerations, the court forged the “without reasonable justification” test quoted above.

 

What are the implications?

The UK Supreme Court declared that the advice given to the Queen was unlawful, and it was outside the powers of the prime minister to give it. Therefore the order proroguing parliament was also unlawful. The court ‘quashed’ the order, meaning it was null and of no effect. It declared that “Parliament has not been prorogued” and that “it is for Parliament to decide what to do next”. In a memorable phrase in the summary she read out today in court, Lady Hale announced that “…when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper.”

In other words, legally speaking, parliament is still in session and there is nothing to prevent parliamentary business from resuming immediately. That is a political decision for parliament itself, and the court invited the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker to decide as soon as possible upon a way forward. It appears John Bercow has already announced that the 2017-2019 session will resume tomorrow, 25 September 2019.

The court also gave guidance that, in most circumstances, the prime minister’s desire to end one parliamentary session and begin another “will normally be enough in itself to justify the short period of prorogation [for a few days] which has been normal in modern practice” (para 51). The court said it would exercise caution in second guessing any justification put forward, because the prime minister should receive a degree of deference in his area of responsibility. Might the prime minister seek to prorogue parliament afresh, albeit for only the ‘normal’ few days? It would appear extraordinary for the prime minister to do something so politically incendiary at this juncture, and it would inevitably face a further judicial review. However, the UK Supreme Court does seem to have left open the possibility of briefly proroguing in order to deliver a Queen’s Speech. Boris Johnson has said that he is returning to London shortly from New York and will respect the court’s judgment, but it does not appear he has yet ruled a further prorogation out.

The wider implications may be significant. For example, only three carry over motions were passed for eligible bills before parliament was purportedly prorogued, so a range of bills, including all five Brexit bills, were understood to have fallen. If the parliamentary session never ended, however, logically those bills are still ‘live’. Will a temporary recess need to be agreed to allow for the Conservative party conference next weekend as would happen in a typical year? Will parliament’s first act be to seize control of the order paper again, and to what end – perhaps to legislate a new statutory control mechanism for use of the prerogative? It must be rather unsatisfactory for politicians that future prorogations are clearly open to challenge and their lawfulness rests on uncertain criteria: whether a prorogation is long enough to require justification, and whether the justification given is reasonable, and whether its effect is sufficiently serious to justify intervening.

The UK Supreme Court has clearly tried to limit its ruling to the very extraordinary circumstances that have arisen, calling the case a “one off”. Nevertheless, the terms of its judgment, particularly around the “without reasonable justification” test, seem to invite further litigation. That potentially includes claims brought by parties who wish not only to use the courts to uphold the constitution, but also to advance political objectives – even where they have not succeeded in doing so in parliament.

A version of this blog was published on LexisNexis on 24 September 2019.

 

Further information

We regularly represent parties in judicial review challenges. Our lawyers also blog regularly about public law matters, including in relation to the impact of Brexit. Read our Public Law blog and Brexit blog for the latest commentary.

Should you have any questions about the issues covered in this blog, please contact Adam Chapman or a member of our Public Law team.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nick Wrightson is a Senior Associate in our Public Law team. Nick has an administrative and public law practice focused on judicial review litigation and supporting clients through public inquiriesNick’s experience includes representing public bodies, private companies, individuals, representative bodies and charities – often in high stakes, politically and commercially sensitive cases.

Brexit Bulletin Board

Brexit Bulletin Board

Brexit and EU citizens in the UK

A simple chart showing what will happen to EU citizens living in the UK if there's a deal or if there's no deal. September 2019

Brexit - What EU citizens living in the UK need to know

Read More

Brexit - what British citizens living in the EU need to know

READ MORE

Brexit and UK citizens in the EU

A simple chart showing what will happen to UK citizens living in the EU if there's a deal or if there's no deal. October 2019

Brexit immigration podcast - a view from Europe

We chat to immigration specialists in Spain, Germany, France and Italy on what British citizens in those countries should be doing now. August/September 2019

Click here to listen

No-deal Brexit policy update provides some relief for employers and EU citizens

5 September 2019

READ MORE

The EU Settlement Scheme - a guide for EU citizens living in the UK

Click here to play video

Brexit: business anxiety over freedom of movement U-turn

20 August 2019

READ MORE

Handle with care: why it’s time to treat EU nationals responsibly

30 August 2019

READ MORE

Glitches in the EU Settlement Scheme

5 August 2019

Read more

The suspension of parliament increases legal scrutiny of Brexit – and possibly a public inquiry?

29 August 2019

Read more

Kingsley Napley's immigration team sponsors Financial and Professional Services Post-Brexit Immigration Briefing

9 May 2019

READ MORE

Post-Brexit data sharing with EU regulators is key for FCA policing market abuse

1 February 2019

Read News Item

No-deal Brexit: transitional arrangements for EEA nationals arriving after 29 March 2019

29 January 2019

READ MORE

No deal Brexit: what this would mean for extradition?

23 January 2019

Rebecca Niblock blogs

EU Settlement Scheme - what you need to know

November 2018 - In this podcast Gillian Brownlee and Felicity Woof discuss the new EU Settlement Scheme which at the time of recording (in November 2018) is due to go live on 30 March 2019.

Listen to the podcast

'Playing by their own rules?' - Brexit blog series

Our Public Law team blogs about secondary legislation and Brexit.

View the blog series

Mutual trust remains until we leave: notification of intention to leave the EU not an exceptional circumstance

19 September 2018

Read the blog

No-deal Brexit and the impact on patient safety

20 September 2018

READ MORE

Divorced, beheaded, scrutinised? SIs and Henry VIII powers under review

31 August 2018

Read the blog

Brexit: "It was not this that I promised to do"

14 August 2018

Read the blog

Brexit and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW): at least now we know what we don’t know

9 August 2018

Read the blog

Could Brexit send Geraint Thomas into a spin?

30 July 2018 - Hanging over this year’s Tour de France, at least for this British cycling fan, was the realisation that this is probably the last Tour pre-Brexit, and so there is an additional level of uncertainty about what the 2019 post-Brexit edition will look like.

Read the blog

Holiday home/Retirement planning: will Brexit wreck it?

16 July 2018 - A question you may ponder as you relax on that sunlounger in the weeks ahead is whether you need to review your arrangements for any EU based property in light of Brexit.

Read the blog

Brexit and practising rights for lawyers

9 July 2018 - Two Solicitor friends of mine recently asked me to sign their applications to register with the Law Society of Ireland. I asked them if they were thinking of moving.

Read Blog Post

#Brexit: Further clarification on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK: https://bit.ly/2LY0QtA

18 June 2018

View Tweet

Blackberries, Baking and Brexit

11 July 2018

Read Blog Post

A change of course? Pondering the future of golf in Brexit Britain

29 March 2018 - As avid golfers focus their attention on the US Masters in Augusta Georgia next month, many at the 19th Hole will be pondering the impact of Brexit on their beloved game.

Read the blog

Post-Brexit language testing for EEA qualified healthcare professionals

22 March 2018 - The House of Commons Library published a Briefing Paper on 7 March 2018 outlining the language testing requirements imposed upon healthcare professionals who qualified outside of the UK.

Read Blog Post

Brexit & Horse Racing

5 March 2018 - The UK is home to a myriad of sports employing foreign nationals and receiving investments from overseas companies. Learn how Brexit will impact horse racing and all who are part of it.

Read Blog Post

Brexit & Motor Racing

21 March 2018 - The UK is home to a myriad of sports employing foreign nationals and receiving investments from overseas companies. Learn how Brexit will impact motor racing and all who are part of it.

Read Blog Post

UK-EU security cooperation post #Brexit - ringing the alarm bell! | Part II of a two-part guest blog by EU Criminal Law expert Dr Debbie Sayers | #CriminalLaw http://ow.ly/bO0b30jwHfa

17 April 2018

View Tweet

Kim provides the facts! #stayorgo

19 March 2018

View Tweet

Beyond #Brexit: new anti-money laundering regime agreed

10 July 2018 - No sooner are we one year into the new regime under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 than a further EU instrument has been adopted.

Read Blog Post

What Brexit means for EU employees living in the UK and their families

27 June 2016

View on YouTube

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

You may also be interested in:

Close Load more

Let us take it from here.

+44 (0)20 7814 1200

enquiries@kingsleynapley.co.uk

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility