CHERRY, (FIRST) JOANNA CHERRY QC MP AND OTHERS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2019] ScotCS CSOH_70 (04 September 2019)

The advice to prorogue Parliament is a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable by the courts. Accountability for such advice lies with Parliament and the electorate, not the judiciary. There is no breach of the Claim of Right Act 1689, and prorogation does not render existing legislation futile.

Citation: [2019] ScotCS CSOH_70
Parties: Petitioner: Joanna Cherry QC MP and others; Respondent: HM Advocate General for Scotland; Intervening Party: Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 04 September 2019
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome: petition refused
Legal Topics: Prerogative Powers, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Prorogation, Justiciability, Separation of Powers

Constitutional Law Administrative Law Prerogative Powers Parliamentary Sovereignty Prorogation Justiciability Separation of Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2

Parties

Joanna Cherry QC MP and others

Petitioner

HM Advocate General for Scotland

Respondent

Lord Advocate

Intervening Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Is the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament justiciable?
2 Does the prorogation breach the Claim of Right Act 1689?
3 Does prorogation frustrate the will of Parliament by rendering existing legislation futile?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

petition refused