In the wake of Miller (No 2), it has been contended in the media that prorogation ‘has always been treated as a “proceeding in Parliament”’ and hence protected from judicial review by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. The allegation is that in Miller (No 2), the Supreme Court overturned over 300 years of jurisprudence, including its own 2014 decision that ‘the Crown’s actions in Parliament were sacrosanct and “cannot be questioned”’. Political motivations have been attributed to the Court for this abrupt departure from its own jurisprudence.
Is this actually the case? A dispassionate analysis shows that the Court has taken an approach consistent with its previous jurisprudence on article 9 of the Bill of Rights and has not altered its course for political or any other reasons. This post surveys some of the relevant evidence.
The purpose of article 9
Article 9 of the Bill…
View original post 1,794 more words
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments