The Prorogation Litigation: ‘which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper’

This article considers the recent prorogation litigation, which is encompassed of two legal actions, one in England and Wales, and the other in Scotland, to challenge the Prime Minister’s ability to advise Her Majesty the Queen to use her prerogative powers to prorogue Parliament. The English and Welsh litigation in R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister will be referred to as Miller (No.2) and the Scottish litigation in Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland will be referred to as Cherry. The decision of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Miller) v Prime Minister and Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland will be referred to as Miller (No.2) and Cherry. This article like the decisions of the five courts does not seek to argue about the merits of Brexit, as the purpose is to explore the legal and constitutional implications that have arisen from the prorogation litigation.