|
gptkbp:instance_of
|
gptkb:legal_case
|
|
gptkbp:case_number
|
2019/0031
|
|
gptkbp:court
|
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
|
|
gptkbp:decided_by
|
gptkb:2020
|
|
gptkbp:effective_date
|
24 September 2019
|
|
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
|
R (on the application of Cherry) v. Advocate General for Scotland
|
|
gptkbp:impact
|
judicial review
separation of powers
political accountability
UK constitutional law
devolution issues
|
|
gptkbp:is_cited_in
|
[2019] UKSC 41
|
|
gptkbp:judged_by
|
unanimous
|
|
gptkbp:judges
|
gptkb:Lord_Sales
gptkb:Lady_Hale
gptkb:Lord_Wilson
gptkb:Lord_Kitchin
gptkb:Lord_Kerr
gptkb:Lord_Lloyd-Jones
gptkb:Lord_Reed
|
|
gptkbp:legal_context
|
gptkb:European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018
gptkb:Constitution
gptkb:Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011
gptkb:Scotland_Act_1998
gptkb:Constitutional_Reform_Act_2005
gptkb:conflict
gptkb:Brexit
gptkb:Parliament_Act_1911
gptkb:Human_Rights_Act_1998
government powers
executive authority
Parliamentary Privilege
Judicial Review Act 2017
Sewel Convention
|
|
gptkbp:legal_issue
|
prorogation of Parliament
|
|
gptkbp:legal_principle
|
Parliament's sovereignty
|
|
gptkbp:legal_representation
|
gptkb:David_Pannick
gptkb:James_Eadie
|
|
gptkbp:outcome
|
prorogation was unlawful
|
|
gptkbp:precedent
|
impact on future prorogation cases
|
|
gptkbp:propulsion
|
gptkb:Joanna_Cherry
|
|
gptkbp:public_interest
|
parliamentary democracy
rule of law
government transparency
citizen rights
democratic process
|
|
gptkbp:related_cases
|
R (Miller) v. Prime Minister
|
|
gptkbp:responds_to
|
gptkb:Advocate_General_for_Scotland
|
|
gptkbp:significance
|
constitutional law
|
|
gptkbp:sound
|
September 2019
|
|
gptkbp:bfsParent
|
gptkb:R_(on_the_application_of_Miller)_v._Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union
|
|
gptkbp:bfsLayer
|
6
|