Richard Ekins

Why the Supreme Court should reverse the Scottish Court’s prorogation ruling

The Court of Session has ruled today that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, and the prorogation that followed, was unlawful and so is null and of no effect. This is a startling – and misconceived – judgment. It does not though seem itself to recall Parliament into session, if that were even possible for a court to rule.

Only a summary of the Scottish Court’s reasoning has been released, with the full judgment to follow on Friday. Meanwhile the High Court in London has today released its reasons for rejecting Gina Miller and John Major’s legal challenge to prorogation. Its judgment is a powerful restatement of the orthodox legal view, and firmly and rightly rejects the constitutionally dubious argument that parliamentary sovereignty permits or requires the courts ‘to exercise hitherto unidentified power over the Executive branch of the state in its dealings with Parliament.’ The circumstances and reasons for proroguing Parliament are for the Government to decide.

Written by
Richard Ekins

Richard Ekins KC (Hon) is Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government, University of Oxford.

Topics in this article

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in