About: R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland

An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful.

thumbnail
Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful. On 24 September 2019, in a unanimous decision by eleven justices, the court found that the matter was justiciable, and that Johnson's advice was unlawful; this upheld ruling of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Cherry, and overturned the High Court of Justice ruling in Miller. As a result, the Order in Council permitting the prorogation was null and of no effect and Parliament had, in fact, not been prorogued. (en)
dbo:thumbnail
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 61803555 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 62199 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1124225139 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:align
  • right (en)
dbp:areaOfLaw
dbp:arguedate
  • 0001-09-19 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:argueyear
  • 2019 (xsd:integer)
dbp:court
dbp:decidedate
  • 0001-09-24 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:decideyear
  • 2019 (xsd:integer)
dbp:fullname
  • (en)
  • Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland (en)
  • R v The Prime Minister (en)
dbp:holding
  • The use of the prerogative power of prorogation is justiciable. The Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, and the resulting Order in Council, were unlawful because they had "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". The order was void, and Parliament was not legally prorogued. (en)
dbp:italicTitle
  • no (en)
dbp:judges
dbp:litigants
  • (en)
  • Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (en)
  • R v The Prime Minister (en)
dbp:majority
  • Unanimous (en)
dbp:neutralCitation
  • [[# (en)
dbp:prior
  • (en)
  • [[# (en)
  • [2019] CSIH 49]] (en)
  • [2019] EWHC 2381 ]] (en)
dbp:quote
  • For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision 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. (en)
dbp:width
  • 35.0
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdfs:comment
  • R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland, also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, were joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful. (en)
rdfs:label
  • R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:depiction
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License