R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland) [2019] UKSC 41

On appeals from: [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB) and [2019] CSIH 49

The UK Supreme Court unanimously decided that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, following the Appeals of R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; and Cherry and others  v Advocate General for Scotland.

Summary of judgment

We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a “one-off”.

Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen’s Speech on 14th October. The Prime Minister ticked ‘yes’ to that recommendation.

On 27th or 28th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates. On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly. A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet “up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.

Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October.

On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.

Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty – that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, “the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”. The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision  to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) 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 judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court.  But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

Judgment of the UK Supreme Court can be found here.

Ampersand’s Aidan O’Neill QC was lead counsel for the successful respondents, instructed by Balfour + Manson.

Back

GC (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] CSOH 67

Case comment by Michael Way, advocate

Lord Bannatyne refuses judicial review challenge to homosexuality risk in Zimbabwe

Facts

The petitioner was a national of the Zimbabwe. He sought judicial review of the Home Office’s decision to refuse to accept his further submissions as a fresh claim for asylum, under Immigration Rule 353.

The petitioner had entered the UK in April 2016 and made an asylum claim. His claim was refused in September 2017 and his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed in May 2018. He was refused permission to appeal by the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. Having become ‘appeal rights exhausted’, the petitioner submitted further asylum submissions in February 2019 in terms of Immigration Rule 353.

Issues

The petitioner is an openly gay man. The applicable country guidance case (LZ (Homosexuals) Zimbabwe CG [2011] UKUT 00487 [IAC]) accepts that there is some risk to homosexuals in Zimbabwe, but suggests that there is not a general risk of persecution. Although not decisive, being openly gay might increase risk. Home Office information accepts that being gay in Zimbabwe confers a level a risk but not one, at a general level, that is sufficiently serious to amount to persecution – each case would have to be judged on its particular facts.

The petitioner’s further submissions (and Counsel’s submissions in this petition) sought to link a recent spike in violence and unrest in Zimbabwe to the level of risk that the petitioner might face. This situation would place any vulnerable group at a heightened risk, because the authorities would be less able to offer protection and homophobes might be able to attack gay people with relative impunity. Taking the new evidence as a whole, the decision was said to fail in three ways: (1) to take account of relevant matters; (2) to be supported by adequate reasons; and (3) to demonstrate anxious scrutiny.

The respondent’s position was that the petitioner was seeking to draw a line between two unconnected matters: the spike in violence and the general treatment of homosexuals. The Country Guidance noted that the Zimbabwean authorities do not provide protection to the gay community under normal circumstances. A spike in violence was accordingly irrelevant. In any event the information proffered in the further submissions was general in nature and had been adequately assessed (and dismissed) in the decision letter.

The questions for the Court were therefore:

1. Is there a realistic prospect of an immigration judge, applying the rule of anxious scrutiny, thinking that the petitioner will be exposed to a real risk of persecution on return to Zimbabwe?
2. Has the decision maker erred in law by failing to take relevant matters into account or by giving inadequate reasons?

Decision

Lord Bannatyne refused the petition (at [69]). His Lordship concluded that there was no realistic prospect of success in front of an immigration judge; the claim was bound to fail (at [60]). His Lordship also considered that there was no error of law in respect of failing to give adequate reasons (at [61]-[64]) or consider relevant matters (at [65]-[66]).

On the first question, Lord Bannatyne accepted the “short and sharp point” made by the respondent at [38] with respect to the general lack of protection from the Zimbabwean authorities. A spike in violence made no difference where there was no protection in the first place. This submission “wholly undermined” the core of the petitioner’s case (at [53]).

To the second question, Lord Bannatyne again preferred the respondent’s submissions. Fundamentally, the reasoning was adequate to entitle the Secretary of State to have arrived at her conclusion. The well-established two stage process for considering fresh claims had been laid out in the decision letter. This process appeared to have been followed. Accordingly there was no error of law.

Analysis

The consideration of asylum and humanitarian protection claims always requires the most anxious of scrutiny by any decision maker. That said, a judicial review challenge to the adequacy of reasons and relevancy of considerations is often hard for a petitioner to successfully make out. This case was no different.

While some might not agree with the substance and implications of the applicable Country Guidance case law, a Tribunal would be bound to apply it unless there are compelling reasons not to. The logic of the respondent’s argument on the first issue was accordingly unassailable.

Representation

Ampersand’s Jamie Gardiner appeared for the respondent.

Back

Joanna Cherry QC MP and others v The Advocate General for Scotland [2019] CSIH 49

The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.

A petition for judicial review was raised by 79 petitioners, 78 of whom are parliamentarians at Westminster, on 31 July 2019, seeking inter alia declarator that it would be unlawful for the UK Government to advise HM the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament with a view to preventing sufficient time for proper consideration of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit).

A substantive hearing was fixed for Friday, 6 September, but on 28 August, on the advice of the Prime Minister, HM the Queen promulgated an Order in Council proroguing Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October. The Lord Ordinary (the judge hearing the case at first instance) refused to grant interim orders preventing the prorogation, but brought the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday, 3 September. On the eve of the hearing, in obedience of its duty of candour, the respondent lodged some partially redacted documents exhibiting some of the Government’s deliberations regarding prorogation, going back to 15 August.

The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM’s advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts.

The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.

All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.

The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.

Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.  The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this.  The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.

The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.

The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.

The UK Government has sought to appeal the decision to the UK Supreme Court. The Appeal will be heard on Tuesday, 17th September 2019. No order will be made until the appeal is decided.

Summary of judgment of the Inner House can be found here. The full opinions available here.

Ampersand’s Aidan O’Neill QC is lead counsel for the Petitioners, instructed by Balfour + Manson.

Back