Editor’s Note: Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project invited a number of leading academics and practitioners to offer very short comments on the High Court’s decision on the process for triggering Article 50 in R(Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. We sought contributions from commentators with a range of views; some might be expected to be sympathetic to the Project’s central concerns, and others less so. In the days and weeks ahead, the Project will offer further and more detailed critiques of Miller.

Download pdf

Critiquing the High Court’s Decision

Parliamentary Sovereignty and the High Court’s Mistake

Richard Ekins

The High Court made a bad mistake of law in its judgment yesterday. But it was a mistake not a conspiracy and one into which the Court was led by counsel… Read more

“Intent of Parliament” Unsoundly Constructed

John Finnis

The judgment’s basic thesis: the ECA’s requirement that no new EU treaty-based obligations and rights be introduced into UK law without “Parliamentary control” implies… Read more

Miller: Statutory Interpretation and the Contestability of Constitutional Principles

Mark Elliott

Some of today’s press coverage of the judgment in Miller, accusing judges of acting undemocratically, is deplorable… Read more

Miller: Pointless and Futile

Stanley Brodie QC

The decision of the Court, and the case itself, in Miller v Secretary of State, seems pointless and futile… Read more

Miller and Constitutional Adjudication

Alison Young

I can understand the reaction that Miller is an example of ‘judicial activism’… Read more

Anticipating the Supreme Court’s Hearing

A Heady, Worrying Brew of Doctrines

Carl Gardner

Talk of this judgment creating a “constitutional crisis” are overdone. But I do think Miller is wrongly decided, and problematic. What’s gone wrong is… Read more

On Appearances and Disappearances

Simon Lee

If ever there is a case for interested ‘third’ parties to appear, or at least intervene through written submissions, now is the time for Professor John Finnis, the Judicial Power Project and other constitutional experts to present their views… Read more

Miller: The Bigger Picture

Mixing the Old and the New in Miller

Graham Gee

Irrespective of whether you agree with the judgment – and, for many of the reasons detailed by other contributors, I regard it as mistaken – there is something slightly quizzical about how the High Court answered the question…

Read more

Parliament and the People: A Cautionary Tale

Fergal Davis

The decision in in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union rested on the Sovereignty of the Parliament at Westminster…

Read more

Parliament Should Have Been Left to Look After Itself

Sir Stephen Laws

The notion that Parliament needs the courts’ help to manage its relationship with Government actually undermines Parliamentary Sovereignty and wrongly puts unaccountable judges in overall control… Read more

Questions Old and New: Miller,    Representative Democracy and the Rule of Law?

Lisa Burton Crawford

Miller reorientates our attention: away from the relationship between judicial and legislative power towards the relationship between the legislature and the executive… Read more