For the SQE1 Constitutional Law section, you’ll need to master cases across five critical areas: Parliamentary sovereignty (Jackson, Pickin), executive limitations (Miller 1 & 2), judicial review of prerogative powers (GCHQ), Human Rights Act implications (Nicklinson, Limbuela), and Brexit/devolution challenges. Focus particularly on the Miller cases, which redefined the relationship between Parliament, courts, and executive power. These landmark decisions continue to shape the constitutional framework you’ll encounter throughout the examination.
Landmark Cases on Parliamentary Sovereignty
When examining the UK’s constitutional framework, you’ll find that parliamentary sovereignty stands as the cornerstone principle defining Britain’s unique unwritten constitution. This doctrine establishes Parliament as the supreme legislative authority, able to create or repeal any law without restriction from courts or other bodies.
You’ll need to master key cases like Jackson v Attorney General (2005), which confirmed Parliament’s power to legislate via the Parliament Acts procedure. The court upheld the Hunting Act 2004, reinforcing parliamentary supremacy despite procedural challenges.
Similarly, in Pickin v British Railways Board (1974), the judiciary confirmed they can’t question Parliament’s legislative process.
Courts lack authority to scrutinize Parliament’s internal procedures, as confirmed in the landmark Pickin case.
The War Damage Act 1965 further demonstrates Parliament’s authority to override judicial decisions when it reversed a House of Lords ruling on compensation rights, highlighting the legislature’s unrestrained power.
However, R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019) established important boundaries, as the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the exercise of royal prerogative power to prorogue Parliament was justiciable and could be declared unlawful when it frustrated Parliament’s constitutional functions.
The Miller Case and Executive Limitations
You’ll find that the Miller cases fundamentally redefined the boundaries of executive prerogative powers in UK constitutional law.
The Supreme Court established that ministers can’t use prerogative powers to bypass Parliament, particularly when removing rights established by statute.
This rebalancing reinforced parliamentary sovereignty as the supreme constitutional principle, guaranteeing the executive remains accountable even when exercising traditional Crown powers.
The Court’s majority decision on January 24, 2017 made it clear that formal legislation was required to trigger Article 50 and begin the Brexit process.
Prerogative Power Boundaries
Although prerogative powers have historically given the executive substantial authority, the Miller cases represent watershed moments that firmly established their constitutional boundaries.
You’ll need to grasp how Miller (No. 1) confirmed that prerogative powers can’t be used to override statutory rights established by the European Communities Act 1972, requiring Parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50.
Miller (No. 2) further revolutionized this area by invalidating the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament, establishing that even traditionally absolute prerogative powers have legal constraints rooted in constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court’s approach signals that courts won’t hesitate to intervene when executive actions frustrate Parliament’s constitutional functions.
Remember that these cases demonstrate the evolving judicial role in maintaining the delicate balance between executive flexibility and parliamentary sovereignty.
The 8-3 majority ruling against the Government’s use of prerogative power underscores the Court’s commitment to preserving Parliament’s constitutional authority in matters of significant legal change.
Parliamentary Authority Prevails
The Miller case stands as the definitive moment when courts firmly established the limits of executive power in relation to Parliament’s constitutional authority.
You’ll need to understand how the Supreme Court’s 8-3 majority ruling reaffirmed parliamentary supremacy as a foundational principle of UK constitutional law.
When studying this case, focus on how the court determined that triggering Article 50 required legislation rather than mere prerogative powers.
The judgment clarified that ministers can’t unilaterally effect changes of constitutional significance without Parliamentary approval. This principle traces back to the 1610 Case of Proclamations, demonstrating the historical depth of Parliamentary authority.
For your SQE1 exam, remember that Miller established that major constitutional changes affecting statutory rights require Parliament’s explicit authorization, not executive action alone. The High Court judges faced intense media backlash for their ruling, with some publications labeling them “enemies of the people,” highlighting the politically charged nature of constitutional decisions.
Judicial Review of Prerogative Powers
Royal prerogative powers, once considered beyond the reach of courts, underwent a revolutionary transformation with the landmark GCHQ case in 1985.
You’ll need to understand how this case fundamentally altered constitutional law by establishing that prerogative powers are subject to judicial review despite their royal origins.
Three key principles you must remember:
- The source of power (statutory or prerogative) doesn’t determine reviewability.
- Courts can assess both the existence and lawful exercise of prerogative powers.
- Justiciability, not power source, determines whether courts can intervene.
The House of Lords specifically ruled that the royal prerogative is subject to judicial review in a manner similar to statutory instruments, marking a departure from traditional views.
While exceptions remain for national security and certain political matters, subsequent cases like Miller and Cherry have expanded reviewable territory.
When preparing for SQE1, focus on distinguishing between reviewable and non-reviewable exercises of prerogative—it’s likely to appear on your exam.
Key Human Rights Act Cases and Their Constitutional Impact
You’ll encounter notable Human Rights Act cases that have reshaped the UK’s constitutional terrain through their interpretation and application of Convention rights.
Courts have issued declarations of incompatibility in landmark cases like R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice and Smith v Scott, signaling to Parliament where legislation conflicts with human rights without overriding parliamentary sovereignty.
The HRA imposes strict obligations on public authorities, requiring them to act compatibly with Convention rights, as demonstrated in cases such as Limbuela where the government’s treatment of asylum seekers was found incompatible with Article 3.
The Hillsborough Disaster case exemplifies how the Act enables families to uncover truth about deaths in major justice battles, strengthening governmental accountability.
KEY HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CASES AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL IMPACT
Since its enactment in 1998, the Human Rights Act has fundamentally transformed the UK’s constitutional terrain, creating a domestic forum for citizens to enforce their Convention rights without necessarily traveling to Strasbourg.
When preparing for SQE1, you’ll need to understand the human rights implications of landmark cases that have reshaped judicial accountability.
These key developments include:
- The Hillsborough and Grenfell Tower cases, which established robust investigative obligations under Article 2, forcing authorities to conduct thorough inquiries into preventable deaths.
- The “Black cab rapist” judgment that created positive obligations for police investigations under Article 3.
- Section 3’s interpretative obligation, which has allowed courts to reshape statutory meaning in cases like R v A and Mendoza v Ghaidan.
The Act maintains a crucial balance between judicial oversight and parliamentary sovereignty, as courts cannot invalidate primary legislation but may issue declarations of incompatibility when statutes conflict with Convention rights.
These precedents don’t just represent academic knowledge—they’re powerful tools you’ll need to deploy in your exam scenarios.
Declarations of Incompatibility
Declarations of incompatibility represent one of the most notable constitutional innovations within the Human Rights Act framework, creating a delicate balance between judicial oversight and parliamentary sovereignty.
You’ll need to understand that courts can only issue these declarations when specific legislative provisions conflict with Convention rights—not for mere legislative gaps, as confirmed in *Mercer*.
When studying compatibility assessments, remember cases like *Steinfeld*, where the Supreme Court declared the Civil Partnership Act incompatible with Articles 8 and 14 for excluding different-sex couples.
The declaration implications are considerable: while they don’t invalidate legislation, they create constitutional dialogue between courts and Parliament. Under Section 10 of the Act, fast track procedures exist for remedial orders to amend incompatible legislation following a declaration.
Since 2000, approximately 52 declarations have been issued, with Parliament typically responding through remedial orders or new legislation, preserving the delicate separation of powers while addressing human rights concerns.
Public Authority Obligations
While declarations of incompatibility address legislative conflicts with Convention rights, the Human Rights Act also establishes direct obligations on public authorities—forming another essential mechanism for rights protection.
You’ll need to master the two-stage test for determining when hybrid bodies must comply with Convention rights. Section 6(3)(b) of the Act expands the definition of public authorities to include certain private bodies that perform functions of a public nature.
Three vital cases to visualize the scope of public authority duties:
- *R (Weaver)* – established that social landlords perform public functions when making tenancy decisions.
- Poplar Housing Association – demonstrated how housing associations linked to local authorities qualify as hybrid bodies.
- Police investigation failures – illustrated positive obligations under Article 3, even when harm originates from private individuals.
Devolution Challenges and Legal Precedents
Although the UK’s constitutional framework has evolved considerably since 1998, the legal challenges surrounding devolution reveal persistent tensions between Westminster sovereignty and regional autonomy.
Devolution creates an ongoing constitutional tug-of-war between central authority and nations seeking greater self-governance.
When preparing for SQE1, you’ll need to master how devolution disputes are resolved through statutory mechanisms like Sections 33 and 30 of the Scotland Act.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Reference by the Lord Advocate* confirms that devolved legislatures can’t exceed their legislative competence—even for matters of considerable constitutional importance.
You should understand that while the Sewel Convention carries political weight, it lacks legal enforceability as demonstrated by its status as a political convention rather than a legally binding requirement when Westminster legislates on devolved matters.
Brexit-Related Constitutional Cases and Their Legacy
Since the 2016 referendum, Brexit has generated some of the most notable constitutional cases in UK legal history, fundamentally reshaping our understanding of parliamentary sovereignty and executive power.
These landmark decisions will feature prominently in your SQE1 assessment.
Three key cases you must master:
- *Miller (No. 1)* – establishing Parliament’s crucial role in triggering Article 50, reinforcing sovereignty principles
- Miller (No. 2) – declaring prorogation unlawful, limiting executive power to frustrate Parliament
- Re Allister – confirming the legal status of the Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland Protocol
The Brexit implications extend far beyond politics, creating a constitutional legacy that redefines relationships between government branches.
You’ll need to articulate how these cases not merely resolved immediate Brexit questions but established enduring precedents for UK constitutional law.
Re Allister notably affirmed the principle that provisions of the EU(W)A 2018 can displace earlier Acts of Parliament, reinforcing the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy.
Understanding these cases is essential as the legal profession transitions toward standardized assessment approaches with the SQE replacing the traditional LPC route to qualification.
Final Thoughts
As you prepare for SQE1, remember that “forewarned is forearmed” when tackling constitutional law cases. You’ll need to understand how parliamentary sovereignty has evolved, recognize executive limitations, and grasp the courts’ expanding role in rights protection. These landmark decisions aren’t just academic exercises—they’re the foundation of modern constitutional practice. Master them now, and you’ll steer through the exam with confidence while building crucial knowledge for your future legal career.