R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could rely on the prerogative power to issue a notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to secede from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, or whether parliamentary authorization was required. There is also a brief discussion of the Sewel Convention. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could rely on the prerogative power to issue a notification of the United Kingdom’s intention to secede from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, or whether parliamentary authorization was required. There is also a brief discussion of the Sewel Convention. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could rely on the prerogative power to issue a notification of the UK’s intention to secede from the European Union under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, or whether parliamentary authorization was required. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

PULLING A TRIGGER OR STARTING A JOURNEY? BREXIT IN THE SUPREME COURT

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-223
Author(s):  
David Feldman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Government ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

FOLLOWING a referendum on 23 June 2016 in which 52% of voters (38% of the total electorate) had expressed a preference for the UK to leave the EU, the Government announced that it would start the process of withdrawal, in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”), by notifying the European Council of the UK's decision, exercising the Government's prerogative power to conduct foreign relations. A number of legal challenges were fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. In R. (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Birnie and others intervening) [2017] UKSC 5; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 583 after an expedited hearing, the Court decided two issues: (1) whether the Government could exercise its power under the royal prerogative to give notice, or needed an Act of Parliament to authorise the giving of notice; and (2) whether the Government required the consent of devolved legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales before giving notice or introducing to Parliament a Bill authorising the giving of notice. The Court sat unprecedentedly with all 11 serving members. On issue (1), the Court, by an 8–3 majority, held that an Act of Parliament would be required in order to authorise the giving of notice. On issue (2), the Court unanimously held that there was no legal requirement for consent by the devolved institutions.

R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, Supreme Court. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill—A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland [2018] UKSC 64, Supreme Court

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Scottish Parliament ◽  
The Uk

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill—A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland [2018] UKSC 64, Supreme Court. This case is concerned with the competencies of the Scottish Parliament, and the nature of devolution in the UK more generally. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

10. Prerogative Powers

Public Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 300-332
Author(s):  
Andrew Le Sueur ◽  
Maurice Sunkin ◽  
Jo Eric Khushal Murkens
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Central Government ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Parliamentary System ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Legal Foundations ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

This chapter examines the meaning and the continuing significance of prerogative powers. Prerogative powers are those that were originally exercised by the Monarch before the modern parliamentary system was established. While most prerogative powers have now been replaced by statutory powers, prerogative powers remain important in some contexts, especially in relation to the conduct of the United Kingdom’s foreign affairs. In this context the decision of the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is of particular importance. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 considers the various legal foundations on which central government ministers may base their actions and compares prerogative and statutory powers. Section 3 examines prerogative power—a source of power possessed only by ministers in UK government and the monarch—in more detail. Section 4 considers the progress towards the reform of ministerial prerogatives.

R (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3, Supreme Court (also known as R (on the application of Buckinghamshire CC))

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Secretary Of State

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3, Supreme Court (also known as R (on the application of Buckinghamshire CC)). This case note is concerned primarily with the distinction between ordinary and constitutional statutes, and what happens where two constitutional statutes are in conflict. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness is also discussed. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Home Department

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19, Supreme Court. This case considers the introduction of proportionality as a ground of judicial review beyond human rights and European Union law in the United Kingdom. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals Brexit and Scotland

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 512-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aileen McHarg ◽  
James Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Eu

In the 2016 Brexit referendum, Scotland voted decisively to Remain in the EU, while a UK-wide majority voted to Leave. This article discusses responses to the constitutional significance of a territorially divided result, both prior to and following the referendum, including in litigation over the ‘constitutional requirements’ necessary to trigger the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 TEU ( R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union). It considers what these debates reveal about the uncertain and contested nature of the UK’s territorial constitution, focusing on issues of constitutional security for devolved institutions and competences, and constitutional voice for the devolved territories in handling issues of intertwined competence. It argues that the Brexit episode reveals major weaknesses in the dominant reliance on political mechanisms to give recognition to the constitutional significance of devolution, which do not adequately displace continued legal adherence to the assumptions of a unitary constitution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document