1

This question is closely related to Can the Queen refuse to suspend the Parliament? but based on the new situation given the Supreme Court ruling.

Suppose the Prime Minister asked the Queen to prorogue Parliament at a point where something he does not like is about to happen, with the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The UK Supreme Court, on 24 September 2019, ruled that the Order in Council that she issued to prorogue Parliament in that situation was "unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed".

Can the Queen decline to follow the Prime Minister's advice if he is advising her to take an action she positively knows to be unlawful because of a UK Supreme Court decision? This is different from her merely disliking the action, or even suspecting an action might be unlawful.

Patricia Shanahan
  • 1,614
  • 2
  • 10
  • 11
  • 1
    The supreme court ruling doesn't change anything. How is the queen to know what is lawful or unlawful unless a court rules on it? The situation would never be exactly the same, and the queen's role remains ceremonial. – James K Sep 28 '19 at 09:36
  • @JamesK Not entirely ceremonial. points at the time she dismissed the Australian Prime Minister – nick012000 Sep 28 '19 at 10:02
  • 1
    @nick012000 That's not really the same. Firstly, this is tagged United-Kingdom, so the powers of the Queen of Australia aren't really germane. Secondly it was the Governer-General that dismissed the Australian Prime Minister. – richardb Sep 28 '19 at 10:21
  • 1
    @JamesK isn't that the question? Does the supreme court ruling change anything in that respect? Your comment seems more of an answer, but may need a bit more elaboration on its argument. After all, citizens should obey the law and if new jurisprudence changes how a law is interpreted then citizens are also expected to follow that, right? So in that respect a ruling may change some legal advice. Whether or not that applies to the queen in the prorogation question is the matter of this question but it might be more complex than you reason here. – JJJ Sep 28 '19 at 10:35
  • I looked at whether I could somehow raise the issue that @JJJ identifies in conjunction with the linked question. I did not see a good way of doing so. The answers to that question do not deal with the specific case of the Queen knowing, through a Supreme Court decision, that an action would be unlawful. – Patricia Shanahan Sep 28 '19 at 12:16
  • For those that think the Queen would be required to follow the PM's advice, even if that means taking action she knows to be unlawful, I would like to see some discussion in an answer on the Coronation oath. She did swear to govern the UK according to its laws and customs. – Patricia Shanahan Sep 28 '19 at 16:09
  • I do not think this is a duplicate. Certainly it does not yet have an answer - the only answer to the linked message completely fails to discuss the issue of prorogation under conditions that the Supreme Court has ruled make it unlawful. – Patricia Shanahan Sep 29 '19 at 00:54

0 Answers0