The Queen by the Prime Minister

1
Administrative Law (Moot Court)

2
Items
1. Moot Problem (Concerned Citizens of European Relations v. The Prime Minister)
2. Skeleton argument (Respondent 3)
Case Authorities
1. R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of Civil Service
3. R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate
4. Ridge v Baldwin
5. Regina v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham
Legislations
1. Prorogation Act 1867
2. European Convention on Human Rights 1951
3. Human Rights Act 1998
CASE BUNDLE

3
SKELETON ARGUMENT
MOOT COURT OF APPEAL
Between:
Concerned Citizens of European Relations
APPELLANT
And
The Prime Minister
RESPONDENT
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Ground of Response
The reason has been conveyed to the Queen by the Prime Minister regarding the prorogation of
the Parliament in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case
of R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister.
Submission
1. It has been established by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case of R (on
the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister that the prorogation of Parliament
without any reasonable justification would be unlawful1. However, it has now been
observed that the reasons being the prorogation of the Parliament have been briefed to the
Queen by the Prime Minister in an effective manner. It implies the rationale behind such
a step being undertaken, thereby leading to the comprehensive results as far as the
political affairs in terms of Brexit are concerned. Such an aspect of prorogation supported
by reason is within the ambit of the Constitutional Law of the United Kingdom. The
aspect of prorogation is facilitated by the Prorogation Act of 1867 through which it is
1 R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41