united-kingdom common-law brexit
Was new law created when the UK Supreme Court ruled against the prorogation?
<p>The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that:</p>

<ul>
<li>a ruling on a prorogation was justiciable</li>
<li>and that the duration of the prorogation Boris Johnson advised the Queen to enact, was unlawful</li>
</ul>

<p>Does this mean new law was created yesterday, by creating new legal precedent?</p>

<p>Generally speaking, British courts, when making judgments on constitutional matters regard themselves as <em>interpreting</em> existing law, rather than creating new law.</p>

<p>But technically speaking, any legal precedent established by a court can be interpreted as "creation of new law". </p>

<p>For the avoidance of doubt, the sources of law in the law of England and Wales include: statute law, constitutional convention, prerogative powers, common law, and legal commentary. I may have missed some out and may edit those in later.</p>

<p>Common law refers to the judgments of courts. So here we come to your question:</p>

<p>Several legal principles and precedents were established by this judgment, and you may consider this new "law":</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The court held that prerogative powers are justiciable - courts can limit the scope of these powers</p></li>
<li><p>The prerogative power in question had limits. It can be limited when its use has an extreme detrimental effect on the democracy of the UK and parliamentary sovereignty.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>What is important with point one is that the court <em>recognised</em> that this power has <em>always</em> existed, stemming as far back as the bill of rights in the 17th century. As such, the court is implying that it is creating nothing new, but recognising a law that has always existed. You will see a LOT of this when studying constitutional law. </p>
