4 ms·
Yes this was an important part of the ruling, that the prorogation was considered to be an act imposed from outside upon parliament and not of parliament itself
by nicky0 7y ago
Yes this was an important part of the ruling, that the prorogation was considered to be an act imposed from outside upon parliament and not of parliament itself.
- pjc50 7y agoThat was never in doubt, surely? It's a "royal prerogative" power. Technically the prerogative is unreviewable but "Minister's advice" is.
- nicky0 7y agoWell there was some doubt. The High Court ruled it not judiciable because it considered it was an action of parliament.
- pmyteh 7y agoThe High Court ruled it non-justiciable as inherently political (a similar approach to the 'political question' doctrine in US federal courts). The question the Supreme Court grappled with was whether the actual act of prorogation was a "proceeding in Parliament" or not. If it was, then the court can't overturn its effect despite the illegality they found in the earlier parts of the process (advice and Order-in-Council) as proceedings in Parliament are exempt from judicial scrutiny by the Act of Settlement 1688. They ruled that it wasn't (despite happening in Parliament) as prorogation is inherently an executive imposition from outside and therefore not a Parliamentary proceeding. Consequently they could rule the prorogation "void and of no effect" rather than merely making a declaration of unlawfulness or instructing the PM to have Parliament recalled.