Lecture 22- Recap of Miller cases
why are some cases significant?
appeal cases on the basis that either the judge got the law wrong, or that the law is unclear
clarification of what the law means
clarification of how the law should be applied
what is important to note about a significant case?
what aspects of law was the court trying to clarify or apply
what QUESTION about the law were the judges being asked to answer?
what was the answer and WHY?
the ‘why’ can be described as the reason for the decision or
RATIO DECIDENDUM
what about the factual background?
- in legal practice you look for factual similarities or differences to determine which cases you
want to ask the court to treat as binding
- in understanding the law as a student factual background helps you make sense of the legal
reasoning
- the facts can also be useful in spotting the ‘clues’ in assessment questions
Miller (2017)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND (ISSUE ONE)
PM wanted to trigger Article 50
(article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states a country leaving the EU must give 2 years’ notice)
once the notice period expires, the UK would leave the EU
PM argued that she was using a prerogative power
(prerogative power= power to take a decision without needing to ask parliament first. ‘unwritten’
powers, so can be disputed about exactly what they are)
miller argued the prerogative power could not be used in this circumstance because
a) prerogative of foreign affairs did not include leaving a treaty and
b) only parliament could take a decision like this
LEGAL QUESTION/ QUESTION ONE
Did the prerogative of foreign affairs entitle the PM to trigger Article 50, or was it necessary to ask
Parliament to vote to approve this?
ANSWER TO THE LEGAL ISSUE (DECISION)
why are some cases significant?
appeal cases on the basis that either the judge got the law wrong, or that the law is unclear
clarification of what the law means
clarification of how the law should be applied
what is important to note about a significant case?
what aspects of law was the court trying to clarify or apply
what QUESTION about the law were the judges being asked to answer?
what was the answer and WHY?
the ‘why’ can be described as the reason for the decision or
RATIO DECIDENDUM
what about the factual background?
- in legal practice you look for factual similarities or differences to determine which cases you
want to ask the court to treat as binding
- in understanding the law as a student factual background helps you make sense of the legal
reasoning
- the facts can also be useful in spotting the ‘clues’ in assessment questions
Miller (2017)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND (ISSUE ONE)
PM wanted to trigger Article 50
(article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states a country leaving the EU must give 2 years’ notice)
once the notice period expires, the UK would leave the EU
PM argued that she was using a prerogative power
(prerogative power= power to take a decision without needing to ask parliament first. ‘unwritten’
powers, so can be disputed about exactly what they are)
miller argued the prerogative power could not be used in this circumstance because
a) prerogative of foreign affairs did not include leaving a treaty and
b) only parliament could take a decision like this
LEGAL QUESTION/ QUESTION ONE
Did the prerogative of foreign affairs entitle the PM to trigger Article 50, or was it necessary to ask
Parliament to vote to approve this?
ANSWER TO THE LEGAL ISSUE (DECISION)
