Order this Assignment Now: £179

“The Miller (No.1) (2017) case underscores the centrality of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK constitutional order and dispels any notions about its decline.” Discuss

1) “The Miller (No.1) (2017) case underscores the centrality of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK constitutional order and dispels any notions about its decline.” Discuss.

2) “The judicial vindication of prisoners’ right to vote in cases like Hirst v. UK (No.2) (2006) and Scopolla v. Italy (No.3) (2012) illustrates the strength of the protection of human rights in the UK.” Discuss.

Example Answer - Plagiarised, Place a New Order to Get 100% Plagiarim-free Ready for submission

The Miller (No. 1) case (2017), formally known as R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, serves as a landmark decision in reaffirming the enduring significance of Parliamentary Sovereignty within the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom. This case was pivotal not only in the context of Brexit but also for the broader understanding of constitutional principles in the UK. It centred around the constitutional question of whether the UK government could trigger the process for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU) under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union using its prerogative powers or whether it required the approval of Parliament. The case highlighted the tension between executive powers and Parliamentary authority, and it reaffirmed the supremacy of Parliament in the UK’s unwritten constitution.

At the core of the case was the assertion of the government that, under its royal prerogative powers, it could initiate the Brexit process by triggering Article 50 without the need for legislation passed by Parliament. The royal prerogative, historically granted to the executive, allows the government to act without the direct approval of Parliament in matters related to foreign affairs and treaty negotiations. However, the claim that prerogative powers could be used to alter domestic law was contested. The claim was that, by triggering Article 50, the government would irrevocably alter citizens’ rights under UK law, specifically those deriving from EU membership, such as freedom of movement and the right to reside and work in other EU member states.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Miller (No. 1) ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 without first obtaining authorisation from Parliament. This decision underlined the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a foundational element of the UK`s constitution. The Court ruled that it was Parliament, not the government acting unilaterally, that held the power to make significant changes to domestic law, particularly in relation to citizens` rights. The Court’s ruling made it clear that while the government had the prerogative to conduct foreign policy and negotiate treaties, such powers could not extend to altering the domestic legal order, as Brexit would do. The judgment emphasised that Parliament must be involved whenever there are changes to laws that affect individual rights, reinforcing the view that Parliament, not the executive, must approve such constitutional changes.

This case also highlighted the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. While some critics suggested that the judgment represented judicial overreach, the Court’s role was seen as vital in ensuring that the government adhered to the constitutional principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. The decision effectively curtailed the government`s use of executive powers to effect significant constitutional changes without Parliament’s consent, marking an important safeguard against potential abuses of power.

The ruling also reaffirmed the constitutional significance of the European Communities Act 1972, which incorporated EU law into domestic law. As the Act created rights and obligations for citizens under EU law, the Court ruled that the government could not unilaterally alter or remove these rights through the use of prerogative powers. This reinforced the constitutional understanding that Parliament, and not the government, has the power to change laws affecting citizens’ rights, especially those derived from an international treaty or arrangement.

In light of the ruling, the government was required to introduce and pass legislation to authorise the triggering of Article 50, thus ensuring that any significant changes to the legal and constitutional order would be debated and decided by Parliament. The case was widely regarded as a reaffirmation of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the face of executive action that appeared to bypass parliamentary scrutiny.

In the wider context of UK constitutional law, Miller (No. 1) serves as a reminder of the continued relevance and importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty, a principle that has long been regarded as a cornerstone of the UK’s unwritten constitution. Despite criticisms and challenges, the judgment demonstrated that this doctrine remains robust and unyielding. The ruling made clear that no institution, including the executive or the judiciary, can override the supremacy of Parliament in matters that affect the domestic legal order. The case also provided clarity on the scope of prerogative powers, setting clear boundaries around their use and affirming that they cannot be employed to make fundamental changes to the constitutional order without Parliament’s explicit consent.

Furthermore, the Miller (No. 1) case addressed the broader issue of constitutional change in the UK. The case reaffirmed that the UK constitution is not a single, codified document but rather a series of statutes, common law principles, and conventions. This flexibility has allowed the UK to adapt to changing circumstances, but it also means that constitutional principles, such as Parliamentary Sovereignty, must be rigorously defended. The judgment reinforced the idea that the constitution is not static and that fundamental constitutional shifts require the active engagement of Parliament.

The case also served to highlight the complex relationship between the executive, the judiciary, and Parliament in the UK’s constitutional framework. While the executive holds significant powers, especially in foreign policy and treaty negotiations, the ruling in Miller (No. 1) served as a reminder that these powers are not unlimited. The judiciary’s role in interpreting the law and ensuring that the government operates within its constitutional limits remains crucial to the protection of individual rights and the maintenance of the rule of law. By requiring Parliament`s approval for triggering Article 50, the Court ensured that the government could not act unilaterally on such a significant matter, reinforcing the principle that no single branch of government can operate without checks and balances.

In conclusion, the Miller (No. 1) case reinforced the unassailable position of Parliamentary Sovereignty within the UK’s constitutional framework. The ruling dispelled any notions that this fundamental principle could be eroded by the government or the judiciary, instead asserting that Parliament remains at the centre of constitutional decision-making. This case served as a powerful reminder that significant changes to the law, particularly those that affect citizens’ rights, must be sanctioned by Parliament. The judgment also clarified the scope of the government’s prerogative powers, ensuring that they cannot be used to alter domestic law or constitutional arrangements without Parliamentary consent. Ultimately, the Miller (No. 1) case reinforced the centrality of Parliamentary Sovereignty and demonstrated that the UK constitution remains firmly anchored in this principle, despite the evolving political landscape.