Topic summary
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
- Second ministry (majority)
- EU Withdrawal Agreement
- EU trade negotiation
- COVID-19 pandemic
- Evacuations from Afghanistan
- Levelling up
- COP26
- Refurb controversy
- Owen Paterson scandal
- Rwanda asylum plan
- Murder of David Amess
- Proposed NI increase
- British support for Ukraine in the Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Cost of living crisis
- Conservative Party confidence vote
- Chris Pincher scandal
- Government crisis
- Greased piglet
- When Boris Met Dave
- Spitting Image (2020 TV series)
- This England
- "Vossi Bop"
- "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt"
- "Boris Johnson Is Still a Fucking Cunt"
- "Can't Stop Christmas"
- Boris: The Rise of Boris Johnson
- Boris v. Ken
- Members Only (South Park)
- DSP (film)
- Headcases
- Newzoids
- Brexit: The Uncivil War
- Partygate (TV drama)
R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland ([2019] UKSC 41), also known as Miller II and Miller/Cherry, are joint landmark constitutional law cases on the limits of the power of royal prerogative to prorogue the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Argued before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in September 2019, the case concerned whether the advice given by the prime minister, Boris Johnson, to Queen Elizabeth II that Parliament should be prorogued in the prelude to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union was lawful.
On 24 September 2019, in a unanimous decision by eleven justices, the court found that the matter was justiciable, and that Johnson's advice was unlawful; this upheld the ruling of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Cherry, and overturned the High Court of Justice's ruling in Miller. As a result, the Order in Council ordering the prorogation was null and of no effect and Parliament had, in fact, not been prorogued.