When politics and law collide: The prorogation judicial reviews
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court has, unusually, recently heard, and now delivered judgment on, an appeal concerning costs in statutory appeal and judicial review cases. It is unusual for costs issues to be considered significant enough to merit consideration by the Supreme Court and, not least given the outcome of the appeal – and of course it is easy to be wise after the event – it is something of a surprise that permission to appeal was granted in the first place.
To meet widespread concern about vulnerable workers and working conditions in industries including agriculture, fashion, food and waste disposal, last month (June 2021) the government set up a new watchdog to take over responsibility for tackling modern slavery, enforcing the minimum wage and protecting agency workers.
A Data Subject Access Request, or DSAR, is any request made by an individual for their own personal data. While they are quick and easy for an individual to make, many long hours and significant resources from your organisation will be needed in order to properly respond.
Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.
Over the past few weeks there has been a steady stream of disturbing stories alleging sexual harassment and sexual abuse of children attending a variety of schools across the country, not just incidents involving children and adults but in many cases peer-on-peer abuse.
Perhaps the first practical negative consequence for the UK to emerge “Beyond Brexit” from an extradition perspective relates to Article 83 of the TCA which allows EU Member States to refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK. Germany, Austria and Slovenia had already exercised the Nationality bar during the transition period, which ended on 31 December 2020.
The SRA introduced a new assessment and early resolution process focusing on upfront engagement and delivering, where possible, earlier outcomes on concerns reported to it. Additionally, in February 2019, the SRA introduced a revised Enforcement Strategy, setting out its approach to enforcement and the factors it will take into account when considering whether regulatory action is needed.
On 18 March 2021 the government published the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and began a public consultation on reforms to judicial review. This blog provides some initial thoughts on these important developments. For background on the IRAL see our introductory blog here.
The COVID-19 crisis has forced sports clubs, schools, universities and charities to rapidly change their approaches to coaching, teaching and support work. The regulations on social distancing have forced organisations to innovate; services which had previously been offered mostly or wholly in person were rapidly shifted online during “lockdown 1” and will return online at least for the duration of “lockdown 3”. If the vaccine rollout has the desired effect there will no doubt be some return to “traditional” methods, but it seems very unlikely that the changes brought about by the pandemic will be completely reversed. In this blog, Claire Parry from Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team and Fred Allen from the Public Law team look at the challenges organisations face engaging with children online.
This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.
The potential fallout from Brexit for extradition and cross-border criminal justice security had been forewarned even before the first vote was cast in the Referendum. The risks to the UK of losing access to SIS II and complicating a relatively simple (albeit not perfect) EAW process were highlighted by many practitioners, law enforcement agencies and politicians.
Globally, a trend is taking shape towards legislation that asks more from businesses than the reporting obligations of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, in the area of business and human rights.
Deal or no deal, when the UK’s transition agreement expires at 11pm on 31 December 2020 the country will no longer participate in EU sanctions arrangements or otherwise give effect to EU sanctions regimes. Instead, it will operate a two tier system, devising its own sanctions policies and measures which will be supplemented by sanctions measures imposed as a result of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
The government has now approved the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The reason they have been able to do this so quickly is because they have taken advantage of the temporary authorisation regime laid out by the Human Medicine Regulations of 2012 and 2020. The 2012 Regulations were updated in 2020 specifically to facilitate the smooth rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. In the public consultation preceding the introduction of these updated regulations, several respondents raised concerns regarding unlicensed vaccines and immunity from civil liability. In practice, very little is known about these regulations and their application. This article seeks to shed some light on the temporary authorisation regime and suggest a means of alleviating concerns in the context of “vaccine hesitancy”.
The Internal Market Bill (the “Bill”) has caused a dramatic fallout at home and abroad. It has faced massive defeats in the House of Lords over the month on November. It was the reported reason behind the UK’s most senior legal civil servant announcing his departure from the Government Legal Service.
As the end of the Brexit transition period draws near, complexities associated with navigating cross-border regulatory regimes have been increasingly brought to the fore. The Law Society of Ireland’s announcement last week, confirming a ‘physical presence’ requirement for solicitors intending to practise in Ireland, has highlighted wider post-Brexit issues surrounding residency requirements and recognition of qualifications for regulated professionals on the British/Irish border.
It is now more than two years since the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR came into force, significantly increasing the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). With the passing of the Act, the ICO gained the power to issue fines amounting to millions of pounds and increased powers to bring criminal prosecutions against organisations who fail to comply with the data protection regime.
On 31 July 2020 the Government launched an Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘the Review’). The panel of lawyers and academics, chaired by former Minister of State for Civil Justice Lord Edward Faulks QC (‘the Panel’), has been tasked with examining the potential need for reform of Judicial Review and to ‘consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.’
The Bloomsbury Institute was fighting to survive financially after the Office for Students refused its application for registration. It brought a judicial review challenge which revealed that an unpublished policy had been followed. The policy had been formulated by an official who did not have the power to make the relevant decisions.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility