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

4
understood that there are procedures that are to be followed in terms of the prorogation of
the Parliament2.
2. It is also observed that the reason behind the prorogation, as conveyed to the Queen by
the Prime Minister, implies truthfulness. As a result, the due process of law has now been
followed by the Prime Minister as far as the prorogation of the Parliament is concerned.
The Supreme Court held the prorogation to be in contravention of the law as it did not
find any substantial reason behind the prorogation initiated by the Prime Minister.
3. There are no valid grounds for the court to set aside the decision made by the Prime
Minister in terms of the prorogation of the Parliament since the truth behind the rationale
for the prorogation of the Parliament is already observed form the facts and
circumstances of the scenario as far as the aspect of fairness in terms of political affairs is
concerned. As a result, it is inferred that the aspect of fairness is to be taken into
consideration regarding the reason behind the prorogation of the Parliament by the Prime
Minister by conveying to the Queen in a truthful manner.
4. It is imperative from the analysis of the facts of the case that the prorogation should be
proceeded with lawfully. The Prime Minister has made the proper reasons in terms of the
prorogation to the Queen. If the reasons imply the benefits as a result of prorogation, then
there should not be any reason about illegality or unlawfulness in terms of the
prorogation of the Parliament. Such an instance is understood from the judgement made
by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case of R (on the application of
Miller) v The Prime Minister.
5. It is imperative that if such kind of prorogation is held to be unlawful, there would be an
error of law as far as the principles of natural justice relating to equality and fairness are
concerned. As a result, the setting aside if such prorogation accompanied by proper
reason would be bad in law as far as the constitutional aspect is concerned analysing the
facts of the case in a detailed manner. The unlawfulness related to prorogation in the case
of R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister was considered through the
exercise of judicial review.
6. Such an act by the Prime Minister concerning the conveying of the reason regarding the
prorogation of Parliament to the Queen is not incompatible with any right of the
European Convention of Human Rights of 1951 as understood by Sub-section 1 of
section 6 of the Human Rights Act of 19983. The Prime Minister is a public authority as
meant by Sub-section 3 (b) of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act of 1998. As a result,
such a decision made by the Prime Minister is not subject to judicial review since the
prorogation is supported by reasons in a truthful manner4.
7. It was established by the House of Lords in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v
Minister of Civil Service that the grounds for setting aside of a decision by judicial review
imply unlawfulness, unreasonableness along with irrationality and expectations in a
2 Prorogation Act 1867
3 European Convention of Human Rights 1951
4 Human Rights Act 1998

5
legitimate manner5. None of these grounds are prevalent in the case since the truthful
aspect is already observed concerning the reasons made to the Queen in a detailed
manner by the Prime Minister regarding the prorogation of the Parliament which was
missing in the case of R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister.
8. It is observed that in this case, if the decision regarding re-prorogation of Parliament by
the Prime minister is unlawful, it would lead to the ignorance of substantial
considerations since the reasons have already been furnished to the Queen by the Prime
Minister. Therefore, there are no grounds concerning the setting aside of the decision
regarding prorogation as far as legalities are concerned. Additionally, the unlawfulness of
such prorogation would imply the lack of application of mind and the defiance of logic.
9. The challenge of the prorogation backed by proper reason would lead to the blatant
contravention of the principles of natural justice as far as the involvement of bias is
concerned as established by the House of Lords in the case of R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow
St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate which implies that there should not be any
personal interests concerning the making of a judgement as far as the aspect of fairness is
concerned6. The exercising of natural justice is based on the facts and circumstances of
the case which should be examined in a detailed manner as established by the House of
Lords in the case of Ridge v Baldwin7.
10. As observed from the principles of natural justice, the maxims nemo judex in causa sua
along with audi alteram partem need to be considered, thereby implying the setting aside
of the challenge to the decision of Prime Minister regarding prorogation of Parliament
despite truthfully briefing the Queen. The maxim nemo judex in causa sua implies that no
one should be a judge in his or her cause. The maxim audi alteram partem implies that
the other side should be heard reasonably before concluding a decision.
11. The duty to provide reasons regarding the prorogation has been followed by the Prime
Minister as understood from the case as implied by the common law. Such an aspect is
also inferred from the decision made by the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal of
England and Wales in the case of Regina v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte
Cunningham as far as the reasons for making a decision is concerned concerning
lawfulness8. As a result, the providing of reasons is one of the essential obligations of the
making of any decision that has been duly followed by the Prime Minister
12. The appeal filed by the Concerned Citizens of European Relations is to be dismissed
since the prorogation is not unlawful ain nature as implied by the facts and circumstances
of the case since it contains proper reasons by which the Prime Minister has successfully
convinced the Queen regarding the beneficial outcomes of the prorogation of the
Parliament. As a result, the prorogation should be validated and be allowed to proceed
with in the manner as per the Prorogation act of 1867.
5Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister of Civil Service [1984] UKHL 9
6 R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61
7 Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
8 Regina v Civil Service Appeal Board, Ex parte Cunningham [1991] 4 All ER 310

6
In the light of the skeleton arguments and the authorities, the counsel for the Respondent
Honourable Moot Court of Appeal is pleased to conclude that:
1. Prorogation must be allowed
2. The appeal is to be set aside
AND
Pass any order the court deems to be fit and proper in the interest of equity justice and good
conscience.