Constitutional Fundamentals and Sources of Constitution SQE1

Question 1

A bill has passed through all stages in Parliament and has been submitted to the Monarch for Royal Assent. The leader of the opposition has called on the Monarch to refuse Royal Assent as the bill, on the Government’s own admission, breaches international law.

Will the Monarch refuse Royal Assent?

A
No, because by convention the Monarch always grants Royal Assent to a bill that has been passed by Parliament.

B
No, because by law the Monarch must always grant Royal Assent to a bill that has been passed by Parliament.

C
Yes, because it is unconstitutional for Parliament to pass a bill that breaches international law.

D
Yes, because the bill is invalid due to its breach of international law.

E
Yes, because international law is a higher form of law which the Monarch must obey.

Answer 1

Option A is correct. Indeed, the last time the Monarch refused Royal Assent to a bill was in 1707.

Option B is wrong as it is by convention that the Monarch grants Royal Assent; there is no law to that effect. Parliament is sovereign and can pass Acts that breach international law, and there is no precedent for the Monarch to refuse Royal Assent in those circumstances. Hence options D and E are wrong so far as the UK constitution is concerned.

Whilst there might be academic debate whether or not it is ‘unconstitutional’ for Parliament to breach international law, that will not affect the granting of Royal Assent, so option C is wrong.

Question 2

Following rising tension in an overseas country, the Government states it will deploy troops, by exercising powers under the Royal Prerogative. It does not seek Parliamentary approval. Parliament passes emergency legislation, stating that the Government must allow Parliament to debate and vote on the matter prior to taking action. Despite this the Government continues to deploy troops using its prerogative powers.

Which of the following statements is the most accurate in relation to the Government continuing to exercise powers under the Royal Prerogative?

A
Where there is overlap between a prerogative power and a statute, the statute prevails.

B
Prerogative powers are a non-legal source of the constitution.

C
Prerogative powers are only exercisable by government ministers.

D
Where there is overlap between a prerogative power and a statute, the prerogative power prevails.

E
New prerogative powers can be created.

Answer 2

Option A is correct. In cases of conflict, statute will prevail. Accordingly, option D is wrong.

Option B is wrong. Prerogative powers are a legal source of the constitution.

Option C is wrong. Although most prerogative powers are exercised by government ministers on behalf of the monarch, the Queen must exercise some herself, for example giving Royal Assent.

Option E is wrong. No new prerogative powers can be created.

Question 3

The government is considering whether to introduce a bill in Parliament that would breach a recognised constitutional convention.

Which of the following best describes the constitutional implications of the government’s proposals?

A
It will be illegal for the government to introduce legislation in Parliament that breaches a recognised constitutional convention.

B
The courts will ignore the constitutional convention and apply the legislation.

C
The courts will recognise the constitutional convention, but they will apply the legislation if the breach of the convention is reasonable.

D
Although the courts will recognise the constitutional convention, they will nevertheless apply the legislation.

E
Any legislation passed by Parliament that breaches a recognised constitutional convention risks being struck down by the Supreme Court.

Answer 3

Option D is correct. Parliament is sovereign and legally can pass any legislation it pleases. The courts will recognise the convention’s existence, but this will not stop them applying the legislation.

Option E is wrong because the courts do not have the power to strike down legislation. Option C is wrong as the courts will apply the legislation irrespective of the convention and whether the breach is reasonable or not. Equally, there is no legal limit on the type of legislation that the government can introduce; hence option A is wrong. On the other hand, the courts will not ignore the convention, so option B is wrong.

Question 4

The sub judice rule prevents MPs or Lords from discussing matters which are currently or imminently being considered by the Courts.

Which of the following best describes the basis of the sub judice rule as a source of the UK constitution?

A
Statute

B
Case Law

C
Royal Prerogative

D
Constitutional Convention

E
Law and custom of Parliament

Answer 4

Option E is correct. Although it is often mistaken for an example of a constitutional convention, the sub judice rule is in fact a formal law of parliament. Following the Bill of Rights 1689, Parliament has the power to govern itself (“exclusive cognisance”) and therefore makes the rules of parliamentary procedure, of which the sub judice rule is an example.

The other options are therefore wrong.

Question 5

The government has lost an important case in the Supreme Court which affects its ability to carry out a manifesto commitment.

Which of the following statements describes the most realistic option which the government now has?

A
The government can ignore the judgment because court decisions are only advisory for ministers of the Crown.

B
The government can appeal to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

C
The government has the power to remove those Supreme Court justices who participated in this decision.

D
The government could introduce legislation into Parliament to retrospectively change the law and effectively override the judgment.

E
By convention a government which is defeated in the Supreme Court must resign and call a general election.

Answer 5

Option D is correct – primary legislation can alter any legal rule or judgment, even retrospectively, as in Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75.

Option A is wrong – the government is subject to the law and is bound by court judgments. This is the basis for judicial review.

Option B is wrong – the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords no longer exists. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 abolished it and replaced it with the Supreme Court.

Option C is wrong – judges in the senior courts can only be removed by Parliament under the powers dating from the Act of Settlement 1701 and now in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Option E is wrong – there is no such convention. Conventions grow up by practice. In fact there are many examples of governments losing cases in the Supreme Court and elsewhere and staying in office, for example R(Miller) v The Prime Minister, Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41.

Question 6

The government is considering introducing a compensation scheme for victims of some recent extreme weather events.

Which of the following best describes the options available to the government in relation to the royal prerogative?

A
In the absence of a statutory scheme, the government should be able to adopt a non-statutory scheme pursuant to its prerogative powers, subject to Parliament voting the necessary funds.

B
By convention the government should use statutory powers rather than prerogative powers.

C
In the absence of a statutory scheme, the government should be able to adopt a non-statutory scheme and raise funds pursuant to its prerogative powers.

D
The government can use prerogative powers to introduce a compensation scheme less generous than an existing statutory scheme.

E
In the absence of statutory authority, the government cannot use prerogative powers.

Answer 6

Option A is correct. The type of scheme proposed in this question is similar to the criminal injuries compensation scheme that was set up using prerogative powers. However, Parliament will need to authorise expenditure, as the government cannot use the prerogative to authorise expenditure; hence option C is wrong.

Option E is wrong because prerogative powers are by definition non-statutory. In the relatively rare fields where statutory and prerogative powers co-exist, there is no evidence of a convention that the government should use statutory powers; therefore option B is wrong. Option D is also wrong as the government cannot use a prerogative power in a way that contradicts a statutory power.

Question 7

A minister in the UK government has made a statement criticising the government’s economic policy.

Must the minister resign?

A
Yes, because the principle of individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention that a minister who makes an error should resign, although there is no way of legally enforcing a constitutional convention.

B
Yes, because the principle of individual ministerial responsibility is a rule and custom of Parliament, so the minister must resign.

C
No, because the principle of cabinet collective responsibility is a rule and custom of Parliament, so as long as the Prime Minister and cabinet believe the minister acted honourably the minister does not have to resign.

D
No, because the principle of cabinet collective responsibility requires all members of the UK government to publicly support government policy, but there is no way of legally enforcing a constitutional convention.

E
No because the minister has the qualified right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.

Answer 7

The correct answer is D as the principle of cabinet collective responsibility is a constitutional convention requiring a minister who does not publicly support government policy to resign, but as a convention the principle is unenforceable. Option C is therefore wrong as cabinet collective responsibility is a convention, not a rule and custom of Parliament.

Options A and B refer to the convention of individual ministerial responsibility, so are therefore incorrect.

Option E is wrong- although the minister does have the qualified right of freedom of expression under the ECHR, this option is irrelevant to whether the minister should resign or not.

Question 8

A country’s Constitution will usually define a state’s fundamental political principles, establish the framework of the government of the state, and guarantee certain rights and freedoms to the citizens.

Which pairing of words/ phrases is the most accurate classification of the UK’s Constitution?

A
Parliamentarian and formal separation of powers

B
Republican and flexible

C
Unitary and unwritten

D
Monarchical and rigid

E
Presidential and written

Answer 8

C is the correct answer where both words/ phrases accurately describe the UK constitution

Answer A is wrong as UK constitution does not adhere to the formal separation of powers theory.

Answer B is wrong, as although UK constitution is flexible it is not republican.

Answer D is wrong, as although UK constitution is monarchical it is not rigid.

Answer E is wrong, as UK constitution is neither presidential nor rigid.

Question 9

The Government is proposing to introduce legislation in Parliament that would breach a recognised constitutional convention.

Which of the following best describes the constitutional implications of the Government’s proposals?

A
Any legislation passed by Parliament that breaches a recognised constitutional convention risks being struck down by the Supreme Court.

B
The courts will ignore the constitutional convention and apply the legislation.

C
Although the courts will recognise the constitutional convention, they will nevertheless apply the legislation.

D
The courts will recognise the constitutional convention, but they will apply the legislation if the breach of the convention is reasonable.

E
It will be illegal for the Government to introduce legislation in Parliament that breaches a recognised constitutional convention

Answer 9

Option C is correct. Parliament is sovereign and legally can pass any legislation it pleases. The courts will recognise the convention’s existence, but this will not stop them applying the legislation.

Option A is wrong because the courts do not have the power to strike down legislation. Option D is wrong as the courts will apply the legislation irrespective of the convention and whether the breach is reasonable or not. Equally, there is no legal limit on the type of legislation that the Government can introduce; hence option E is wrong. On the other hand, the courts will not ignore the convention, so option B is wrong.

Question 10

A minister has made a grave error which has resulted in significant harm to UK citizens.

Which of the following options best describes the minister’s position?

A
The principle of individual ministerial responsibility is a rule and custom of Parliament, so the minister must resign.

B
The principle of individual ministerial responsibility is a statutory rule that a minister who makes an error must resign, so the minister must resign.

C
The principle of cabinet collective responsibility is a rule and custom of Parliament, so as long as the Prime Minister and cabinet believe the minister acted honourably, the minister does not have to resign.

D
The principle of cabinet collective responsibility is a constitutional convention, so as long as the Prime Minister and cabinet support the minister, the minister does not have to resign.

E
The principle of individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention which states that a minister who has made a grave error should resign, although there is no way of legally enforcing a constitutional convention.

Answer 10

The correct answer is E as the principle of individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention requiring a minister who has made a grave error to resign, but as a convention the principle is unenforceable. Options A and B are therefore wrong.

Options C and D are wrong- the principle of cabinet collective responsibility (that all government ministers should publicly agree with government policy) is irrelevant on these facts.

Question 11

A Member of Parliament wishes to criticise a judge’s decision-making skills in a case currently being heard in the Supreme Court. The case is dealing with fracking and the MP wants to know whether the Prime Minister shares the MP’s concerns. The MP intends to raise those concerns during Prime Minister’s Questions.

Which of the following best describes what the MP can do?

A
The MP is free to criticise the decision.

B
This is an important issue and the MP should ascertain what the Prime Minister’s intentions are.

C
By constitutional convention, the MP cannot criticise an individual member of the judiciary in public.

D
By law, the MP cannot criticise an individual member of the judiciary in public.

E
The MP can criticise the Judge as part of the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary.

Answer 11

Option C is correct. One of the constitutional conventions that apply is that MPs do not criticise individual members of the judiciary in public. Accordingly, options A and B are wrong.

Option D is wrong as the best practice in this case is a matter of constitutional convention, not law.

Option E is wrong. Whilst there are checks and balances between the executive and judiciary, criticising a Judge is not one of them and is dealt with by constitutional convention.

Question 12

The Government is considering introducing a compensation scheme for victims of some recent floods.

Which of the following best describes the options available to the Government in relation to the royal prerogative?

A
In the absence of statutory authority, the Government cannot use prerogative powers.

B
By convention the Government should use statutory powers rather than prerogative powers.

C
The Government can use prerogative powers to introduce a compensation scheme less generous than an existing statutory scheme.

D
In the absence of a statutory scheme, the Government should be able to adopt a non-statutory scheme and raise funds pursuant to its prerogative powers.

E
In the absence of a statutory scheme, the Government should be able to adopt a non-statutory scheme pursuant to its prerogative powers, subject to Parliament voting the necessary funds.

Answer 12

Option E is correct. The type of scheme proposed in this question is similar to the criminal injuries compensation scheme that was set up using prerogative powers. However, Parliament will need to authorise expenditure, as the Government cannot use the prerogative to authorise expenditure; hence option D is wrong.

Option A is wrong because prerogative powers are by definition non-statutory. In the relatively rare fields where statutory and prerogative powers co-exist, there is no evidence of a convention that the Government should use statutory powers; therefore option B is wrong. Option C is also wrong as the Government cannot use a prerogative power in a way that contradicts a statutory power.

Question 13

Collective cabinet (or ministerial) responsibility is an example of a UK constitutional convention.

Which of the following is the best description of this convention?

A
The Ministerial Code provides for legal sanction should a minister deviate from collective cabinet responsibility.

B
As it is a constitutional convention, a breach of collective cabinet responsibility will incur no sanction.

C
A legal sanction could be expected if a minister openly disagrees with the policy of the government.

D
The operation of the convention is a matter for the Speaker of the House of Commons.

E
Breach of collective cabinet responsibility usually entails a political sanction, although the support of the Prime Minister is often an important factor.

Answer 13

Option E is correct. Breaches of conventions (such as collective cabinet responsibility) may result in political sanctions, but not legal sanctions. The convention of collective cabinet responsibility holds that ministers should resign if they wish to speak out in public against government policy.

Option A is wrong, as the Ministerial Code does not have legal effect.

Option B is wrong. The breach of conventions will ordinarily entail some political pressure or sanction.

Option C is wrong. The breach of conventions do not ordinarily entail legal sanction.

Option D is wrong. The operation of the convention of collective cabinet responsibility is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister (eg it is open to the Prime Minister to suspend the operation of collective cabinet responsibility as happened during the EU referendum in 2016).

Question 14

A solicitor is advising on the nature of the UK constitution in a public law case. A constitution can be defined as being a body of rules which regulates the system of government within a state and it is concerned with the relationship between government and the individual.

Which of the following statements best describes the UK constitution?

A
The UK Constitution is unwritten, republican, rigid and has an informal separation of powers.

B
The UK Constitution is unwritten, monarchical, flexible and has a formal separation of powers.

C
The UK Constitution is unwritten, monarchical, rigid and has a formal separation of powers.

D
The UK Constitution is unwritten, monarchical, flexible and has an informal separation of powers.

E
The UK Constitution is written, monarchical, rigid and has an informal separation of powers.

Answer 14

Unwritten: there is no single, authoritative document that contains the constitution. Rather, the constitution is made up of a number of different sources such as statute and case law; Monarchical: the monarch is the unelected head of state, although the monarch’s role is almost entirely ceremonial; Flexible: a state which has a flexible constitution is comparatively easy to change because no special procedures are necessary for the constitution to be amended; Informal separation of powers: there is a considerable degree of overlap in terms of function and personnel between the three branches of state, namely the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

Option A is wrong as the UK constitution is monarchical, not republican, and flexible, not rigid.

Option B is wrong as the UK constitution has an informal, not formal, separation of powers.

Option C is wrong as the UK constitution is flexible, not rigid, and has an informal, not formal, separation of powers.

Option E is wrong as the UK constitution is unwritten, not written, and flexible, not rigid.

Question 15

A body of Constitutional Conventions has arisen within the UK which are considered binding upon the branches of the state, but not legally enforceable.

Which of the following is NOT an example of a Constitutional Convention?

A
The monarch, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, will not refuse Royal Assent to a bill which has been passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

B
Government ministers are responsible to Parliament both for the running and proper administration of their respective departments, and also for their personal conduct.

C
The Judiciary do not have the power to strike down legislation which they consider to be unconstitutional. In certain circumstances, they can make a declaration that legislation is incompatible with Convention Rights.

D
Ministers and Members of Parliament do not criticise in public individual members of the judiciary

E
The Cabinet must be united in public in support of government policy, and so a Cabinet Minister must resign if he or she wishes to speak out in public against such policy

Answer 15

C is the correct answer. It does not describe a convention, it is an illustration of the operation of the principle of Separation of Powers. Answers A, B, D and E are all examples of Constitutional Conventions.

Question 16

A minority Government in power is proposing to use its prerogative powers to acquire an overseas territory, a move to which many Members of Parliament object, and they wish to stop the Government’s proposed actions.

Which of the following statements best describes the way in which Parliament can control the exercise of prerogative powers?

A
Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through an international treaty.

B
Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through a constitutional convention.

C
Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through a statute.

D
Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through judicial precedent.

E
Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through a royal commission.

Answer 16

Option C is the correct answer, as Parliament can override or displace an existing prerogative power through statute. Neither statute, the Crown nor the Courts can create new prerogative powers. Options A, B, D and E are wrong as prerogative powers cannot be abolished through international treaty; constitutional conventions; judicial precedent or a royal commission.

Whilst prerogative power is unique to the Crown, and is itself distinct from statute, there may be some instances where the prerogative and statutory powers overlap. In the event of a conflict between the prerogative and statutory power, it is the latter which prevails (AG v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508). A prerogative power may be abolished by the express words of the statute or by necessary implication. Alternatively, it may be expressly preserved, e.g. section 11 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

Question 17

A Government minister speaks out criticising Government policy to provide funding for after school football training. In his speech the Minister says the policy is a waste of public funds and that the money would be better spent on projects his department is supporting.

What are the likely consequences for the Minister of his action and on what basis?

A
There will be no consequences. The Minister is entitled to freedom of speech and can speak out if he wishes.

B
The Minister will be expected to resign as he is in breach of the convention of Individual Ministerial Responsibility and spoke on behalf of his department.

C
The Minister will be expected to resign as he is in breach of the convention of Collective Ministerial Responsibility.

D
The Minister will be expected to resign as he is in breach of the Salisbury Convention.

E
The Minister will be expected to resign as he is in breach of the convention of Individual Ministerial Responsibility as he was wrong to speak out as a matter of conduct.

Answer 17

A is wrong as the Minister is subject to constitutional conventions restricting what he can say in public.

B is wrong as the Minister’s department has not acted incorrectly

C is correct. The Minister is in breach of the convention of Collective Ministerial Responsibility and should not disagree with Government policy in public.

D is wrong – the Salisbury Convention is irrelevant (relates to House of Lords).

E is wrong as it is not about his personal misconduct.

Question 18

The UK government has prerogative power to enter into or amend international treaties. It has entered into a treaty (“the Treaty”) with Canada regarding cargo ships, under which ships may only carry goods between the UK and Canada if their operators have obtained authorisation from the governments of both countries. An Act of Parliament (“the Act”) authorises certain named cargo ship operators to transport goods between the UK and Canada.

The government now wishes to prevent one of the operators named in the Act from transporting cargo to Canada, but does not want to wait to amend the Act. It therefore negotiates an amendment to the Treaty which specifically prevents the client from being able to sail into Canadian waters. The operator wishes to challenge this decision, but the UK government has asserted that its prerogative powers entitle it to act as it has done.

Which of the following best describes the legal position?

A
As the Royal prerogative and statute come into conflict, the prerogative will prevail and the government’s decision will be lawful.

B
As the Royal prerogative and statute come into conflict, the statute will prevail and the government’s decision will have no effect.

C
The Act will be impliedly amended by the agreement made between the government and Canada.

D
Before hearing any challenge to the government’s decision to amend the Treaty, the courts would ask Parliament for a view on whether it is likely to amend the Act.

E
Decisions made under the Royal prerogative are non-justiciable and your client will not therefore be able to bring a claim in the courts.

Answer 18

Where statute and the Royal prerogative come into conflict, statute will prevail. It is not possible to use prerogative powers to undermine or render ineffective an Act of Parliament (see Miller v Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union [2017] UKSC 5).

For this reason, B is the only correct answer. The amendment to the Treaty clearly undermines the Act, so the courts are very likely to hold that the Government’s prerogative powers were in abeyance unless and until the Act has been amended.

Option A is incorrect for essentially the same reason. The Government cannot use its prerogative powers to undermine a statute. The statute would have to be amended before any renegotiation of the Treaty took place.

Option C is wrong because changing the terms of a statute requires Parliament to pass primary legislative amending or repealing its provisions.

Option D is wrong. While there are some circumstances in which the courts will take account of future action that Parliament might take, but none are relevant here. The changes to the Treaty are clearly at odds with existing legislation and thus unlawful.

Option E is incorrect. While decisions taken under the Royal prerogative were once considered non-justiciable, a major shift occurred in Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374. Since then the areas of prerogative power on which the courts will not hear claims have reduced yet further (see R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, [2020] AC 373. The circumstances here would certainly be justiciable (see e.g. Laker Airways v Department for Trade [1977] QB 643; Miller v Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union [2017] UKSC 5).

Question 19

The Prime Minister convened a meeting of the Cabinet in order to discuss confidential plans for the closure of 50 local hospitals as a means of cutting costs. During the discussions, one of the ministers present at the meeting objected strongly to the proposals. Despite the minister’s objections, the Cabinet agreed the closures, but decided to keep the decision confidential while detailed plans were prepared. Following the meeting, the minister threatened to denounce the closures in the press. The Prime Minister wishes to apply to the court to stop the minister from doing so.

Which of the following statements best describes the approach the court is likely to take?

A
The court will enforce the constitutional convention of Collective Ministerial responsibility.

B
The court will recognise the constitutional convention of Collective Ministerial responsibility but will not enforce the convention directly.

C
The court will enforce the constitutional convention of Individual Ministerial responsibility.

D
The court will recognise the constitutional convention of Individual Ministerial responsibility but will not enforce the convention directly.

E
The court will require evidence that the minister intended to break convention before being prepared to provide a remedy.

Answer 19

Answer B is correct. This scenario deals with constitutional convention governing Cabinet discussions, Collective Ministerial responsibility. One of the aspects of this convention is that the Cabinet must be united in public in support of Government policy. A minister wishing to speak out publicly against Cabinet policy must resign. This is sometimes confused with Individual Ministerial responsibility which is the convention that Government Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the proper administration of their department and for their own personal conduct. Constitutional conventions are non-legal rules. While the courts recognise the existence of constitutional conventions, they are not prepared to enforce them directly, as demonstrated in the case of Jonathan Cape [1976] QB 752 and confirmed in the recent case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5. Constitutional conventions are considered binding upon those who operate the constitution which would include Government ministers. Evidence of knowledge and intent would be irrelevant.

A is wrong as constitutional conventions are not legally dinging and therefore not enforceable by courts.

C is wrong, as it mentions Individual as opposed to Collective Ministerial Responsibility.

D is wrong, as conventions are not legally enforceable and do not entail a legal remedy.

Question 20

A bill has passed through all stages in Parliament and has been submitted to the Monarch for Royal Assent. The leader of the opposition has called on the Monarch to refuse Royal Assent as the bill, on the government’s own admission, breaches international law.

Will the Monarch refuse Royal Assent?

A
No, because by law the Monarch must always grant Royal Assent to a bill that has been passed by Parliament.

B
No, because by convention the Monarch always grants Royal Assent to a bill that has been passed by Parliament.

C
Yes, because international law is a superior form of law which the Monarch must obey.

D
Yes, because the bill is invalid due to its breach of international law.

E
Yes, because it is unconstitutional for Parliament to pass a bill that breaches international law.

Answer 20

Option B is correct. Indeed, the last time the Monarch refused Royal Assent to a bill was in 1707.

Option A is wrong as it is by convention that the Monarch grants Royal Assent; there is no law to that effect. Parliament is sovereign and can pass Acts that breach international law, and there is no precedent for the Monarch to refuse Royal Assent in those circumstances. Hence options C and D are wrong so far as the UK constitution is concerned.

While there might be academic debate whether or not it is ‘unconstitutional’ for Parliament to breach international law, that will not affect the granting of Royal Assent. Accordingly, option E is wrong.

Question 21

The Vegan Party (fictitious) won a majority in the House of Commons and formed a Government. The Vegan Party’s key manifesto pledge was to ban all non-vegan food products from sale in the United Kingdom and they have put a draft bill before Parliament (“the Bill”) to change the law to that effect. The Monarch is a well-known meat eater and has unusually expressed public concerns about the Bill, leading Royal commentators to speculate that the Monarch may withhold Royal Assent to the Bill, should it be passed by Parliament.

Which of the following best describes the position in relation to Royal Assent?

A
The Monarch’s power of Royal Assent is a Royal Prerogative Power, so the Monarch can refuse to give Royal Assent to the Bill.

B
The Monarch’s power of Royal Assent is a Statutory power, so the Monarch can refuse to give Royal Assent to the Bill.

C
By constitutional convention the Monarch should not refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill that is passed by Parliament, so if Parliament votes in favour of the Bill, the Monarch should give Royal Assent to it.

D
By constitutional convention the Monarch cannot refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill that is proposed by a party with a majority in the House of Commons, so if Parliament votes in favour of the Bill, the Monarch must give Royal Assent to it.

E
By constitutional convention the Monarch should not refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill that is passed by Parliament, so if Parliament votes in favour of the Bill, the Monarch must give Royal Assent to it.

Answer 21

Option C is the best answer, because by constitutional convention the Monarch should respect Parliamentary Supremacy and give Royal Assent to a Bill that has successfully passed through Parliament; if the Monarch refused to do so, there would be a constitutional crisis. It cannot be said, however, that the Monarch must give Royal Assent, as constitutional conventions are not enforceable, so option E is wrong.

Option A is wrong because although Royal Assent is a Royal Prerogative power, by convention the Monarch cannot refuse it where Parliament has passed the Bill.

Option B is wrong because Royal Assent is not on a statutory basis.

Option D is wrong because there is no rule that the Monarch cannot refuse Royal Assent to a bill proposed by a party with a majority in the House of Commons.

Question 22

A minority UK Government is preparing to use its royal prerogative powers to deploy the UK’s armed forces to attack a potentially hostile nation which is not actually threatening the UK’s security at this time. All of the opposition parties in Parliament are against the deployment of UK armed forces in this scenario, and collectively they have a majority over the UK Government.

Assuming all opposition parties will agree to any action available to prevent the UK Government deploying UK forces, can the opposition parties take any steps to prevent the UK Government from deploying the UK’s armed forces?

A
Yes, because in principle Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through an international treaty.

B
Yes, because Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through a statute.

C
Yes, because Parliament can abolish a prerogative power through a constitutional convention.

D
No, because Parliament can only abolish a prerogative power through a royal commission.

E
No, because Parliament cannot seek judicial review of the exercise of a royal prerogative power.

Answer 22

Option B is the correct answer, as Parliament can override or displace an existing prerogative power through statute. Neither statute, the Crown nor the Courts can create new prerogative powers.

Options A, C and D are wrong as prerogative powers cannot be abolished through international treaty, constitutional conventions or royal commission.

Option E is wrong because although it is correct that some royal prerogative powers are non-justiciable such as the deployment of UK armed forces to defend the UK, Parliament could simply legislate to override or displace the prerogative power in this instance.