Rule of Law Flashcards
1.0 What is the Rule of Law
case UNISON
Discuss case.
Analogy?
heart of the concept fo the rule of law is the idea that society is governed by law and to ensure those MP’s who are chosen to be accountable to them
heart of the concept fo the rule of law is the idea that society is governed by law and to ensure those MP’s who are chosen to be accountable to them
which area
which case
which analogy
1.0 What is the Rule of Law
case UNISON
we must unify government and rule of law
1.1 Core Rule of Law
case Entick v Carrington
Dicuss case.
Analogy?
Agents of the king acting under a warrant issued by the SOS broke into the house of Entick, and removed certain of his papers for seditious writings
HELD
The action was justified by no specific legal authority therefore was a common trespass
This led Camden CJ to suggest that if it is law, it will be found in our books.
the carringtons are thieves and take what they want
1.1 Core Rule of Law
case Pedro v Diss
Discuss case.
Analogy?
Pedro was standing outside a house, police officer suspected a crime had been committed and searched Pedro. Pedro, who was not under arrest, refused to be lead back to the house, the police officer grabbed him by the arm. Pedro punched him.
Dont diss pedro
Agents of the king acting under a warrant issued by the SOS broke into the house , and removed certain of his papers for seditious writings
HELD
The action was justified by no specific legal authority therefore was a common trespass
This led Camden CJ to suggest that if it is law, it will be found in our books.
the carringtons are thieves and take what they want
what chapter
What case
1.1 Core Rule of Law
case Entick v Carrington
Pedro was standing outside a house, police officer suspected a crime had been committed and searched Pedro. Pedro, who was not under arrest, refused to be lead back to the house, the police officer grabbed him by the arm. Pedro punched him.
Dont diss pedro
what chapter
What case
1.1 Core Rule of Law
case Pedro v Diss
Discuss case.
Analogy?
2.1 Government action interfering with individuals must be authorised by law
Malone v UK
Discuss case
What analogy?
In this case an antique dealer was prosecuted for offences related to dishonest handling of stolen goods. During the trial it emerged that the applicants telephone had been tapped by the police acting on the authority of a warrant by the Home Sec.
HELD:
He was acquitted of criminal charges
Brought proceedings that the phone tapping was unlawful and the practise of metering whereby the PO would make available to the police the record of which numbers had been dialled by the suspect and the time and duration of each call
HELD:
A practise exists whereby the PO do on occasions make and provide such records at the request of the police if the information is essential to police enquiries in relation to serious crime. As the applicant as a suspected receiver of stolen goods, may be a member of a class of persons potentially liable to b directly affected by the practise.
Although lawful in terms of domestic law, the interference was not in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8(2).
Hey stop tappin ma phone
In this case an antique dealer was prosecuted for offences related to dishonest handling of stolen goods. During the trial it emerged that the applicants telephone had been tapped by the police acting on the authority of a warrant by the Home Sec.
HELD:
He was acquitted of criminal charges
Brought proceedings that the phone tapping was unlawful and the practise of metering whereby the PO would make available to the police the record of which numbers had been dialled by the suspect and the time and duration of each call
HELD:
A practise exists whereby the PO do on occasions make and provide such records at the request of the police if the information is essential to police enquiries in relation to serious crime. As the applicant as a suspected receiver of stolen goods, may be a member of a class of persons potentially liable to b directly affected by the practise.
Although lawful in terms of domestic law, the interference was not in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8(2).
Hey stop tappin ma phone
What case
What chapter
Malone v UK
2.1 Government action interfering with individuals must be authorised by law
2.1 Government action interfering with individuals must be authorised by law
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners
Discuss case
give analogy
in this case domestic law stated that if any offence relating to tax fraud is reasonably suspected, search warrants may be issued which allow tax officers to enter private property by force and seize anything in evidence.
COA HELD:
Warrants quashed. Lord Denning stated that it was so wide that in some hands it might be an instrument of oppression
HOL HELD:
Warrants upheld, though Lord Scarman noted it was a breathtaking inroad upon the individuals rights of privacy and right of property.
Revenue= tax = boring
in this case domestic law stated that if any offence relating to tax fraud is reasonably suspected, search warrants may be issued which allow tax officers to enter private property by force and seize anything in evidence.
COA HELD:
Warrants quashed. Lord Denning stated that it was so wide that in some hands it might be an instrument of oppression
HOL HELD:
Warrants upheld, though Lord Scarman noted it was a breathtaking inroad upon the individuals rights of privacy and right of property.
Revenue= tax = boring
What case
What chapter
2.1Government action interfering with individuals must be authorised by law
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners
Discuss case
give analogy
2.2 Equality Before the Law
M v Home Office
Discuss case
Give analogy
M sought political asylum which was refused by HO; just before removal a fresh application alleging new grounds was made. The judge ordered for the removal to be delayed but was not.
Judge made an order requiring HS to procure M’s return. HS decided that the judge had no jurisdiction to make a mandatory interim injunction against him as a minister of the crown
HELD:
Lord Templeman argued that this argument if upheld would establish that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity
Mmmm hm you can’t just sent me home. Mmminster acted without power
M sought political asylum which was refused by HO; just before removal a fresh application alleging new grounds was made. The judge ordered for the removal to be delayed but was not.
Judge made an order requiring HS to procure M’s return. HS decided that the judge had no jurisdiction to make a mandatory interim injunction against him as a minister of the crown
HELD:
Lord Templeman argued that this argument if upheld would establish that the executive obey the law as a matter of grace and not as a matter of necessity
Mmmm hm you can’t just sent me home. Mmminster acted without power
What case
What chapter
2.2 Equality Before the Law
M v Home Office
2.2 Equality Before the Law
GCHQ case
Discuss case
Give analogy
GCHQ Case
Government banned employees of the GCHQ from joining any trade union for national security reasons by an Order in Council using Royal Prerogative
HELD:
Held that Royal Prerogative was subject to judicial review; case established that judicial review depends on the nature of the government’s powers, not their source
Government banned employees from joining any trade union for national security reasons by an Order in Council using Royal Prerogative
HELD:
Held that Royal Prerogative was subject to judicial review; case established that judicial review depends on the nature of the government’s powers, not their source
What case
What chapter
2.2 Equality Before the Law
GCHQ case
2.2 Equality Before the Law
Corner House Research
Discuss case
Give analogy
Corner House Research
An investigation into the corruption of BAE systems began for a contract between Government and Saudi Arabia
Saudi authorities threatened to withdraw from counter terrrism and cooperation agreements with the UK if the investigation continued. The Director thus stopped the investigation. Claimants sought judicial review
HELD:
High Court stated that the courts are there to protect the rule of law by ensuring the independence of the decision maker being free from pressure and threat which the Director failed to do
HOL:
The issue was not whether the directors decision was right or wrong but whether it was a decision which the Director was lawfully entitled to make. Such an approach involves no affront to the rule of law
‘they live in the corner shp and we researching
An investigation into the corruption of BAE systems began for a contract between Government and Saudi Arabia
Saudi authorities threatened to withdraw from counter terrrism and cooperation agreements with the UK if the investigation continued. The Director thus stopped the investigation. Claimants sought judicial review
HELD:
High Court stated that the courts are there to protect the rule of law by ensuring the independence of the decision maker being free from pressure and threat which the Director failed to do
HOL:
The issue was not whether the directors decision was right or wrong but whether it was a decision which the Director was lawfully entitled to make. Such an approach involves no affront to the rule of law
‘they live in the corner shp and we researching
What case
What chapter
2.2 Equality Before the Law
Corner House Research
2.3 Law, especially those interfering with rights, must be sufficiently clear
Hashamn and Harrup
Discuss case
Give analogy
Hunt saboteurs applied to the ECHR for a violation of their freedom of expression.
HELD:
The order in which the applicants were bound over to keep the peace and to not behave contra bonos mores does not comply with the requirement of Art 10 (2) of the Convention that it be prescribed by law. This is merely an opinion of a majority of citizens
The three H’s
has mann and harrup the hunters
Hunt saboteurs applied to the ECHR for a violation of their freedom of expression.
HELD:
The order in which the applicants were bound over to keep the peace and to not behave contra bonos mores does not comply with the requirement of Art 10 (2) of the Convention that it be prescribed by law. This is merely an opinion of a majority of citizens
The three H’s
has mann and harrup the hunters
What case
What chapter
2.3 Law, especially those interfering with rights, must be sufficiently clear
Hashamn and Harrup
2.3 Law, especially those interfering with rights, must be sufficiently clear
Gillan v UK
Discuss case
Give analogy
Concerned the law governing the use of stop and search of the Terrorism Act 2000 s.41 which permitted searches without reasonable suspicion of the individual concerned.
An interference with Art 8 must be in accordance with the law which the Court held were not sufficiently circumscribed or subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse and thus not in accordance with law
Gillan didn’t KILL EM!!
Concerned the law governing the use of stop and search of the Terrorism Act 2000 s.41 which permitted searches without reasonable suspicion of the individual concerned.
An interference with Art 8 must be in accordance with the law which the Court held were not sufficiently circumscribed or subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse and thus not in accordance with law
What case
What chapter
2.3 Law, especially those interfering with rights, must be sufficiently clear
Gillan v UK
2.4 Non Retroactivity of Law
Burmah Oil
Discuss case
Give analogy
During WW2 the Government acting under its prerogative powers, ordered its army to destroy one of Burmah Oil’s refineries to prevent enemies gaining access. After war Gov offered Burmah compensation which they argued was substantially lower than should be given
HELD
Government introduced an Act of Parliament to reverse the result of the judgement which ordered them to may more in compensation
During WW2 the Government acting under its prerogative powers, ordered its army to destroy one of Burmah Oil’s refineries to prevent enemies gaining access. After war Gov offered Burmah compensation which they argued was substantially lower than should be given
HELD
Government introduced an Act of Parliament to reverse the result of the judgement which ordered them to may more in compensation
What case
what chapter
2.4 Non Retroactivity of Law
Burmah Oil
2.5 Cases mist be tried fairly and before an independent judiciary citizens must have access to courts
R v Ex parte Witham
Dicuss case
Give analogy
A statutory instrument which increased court fees and removed the exemption for those claiming income support was held to be ultra vires
Witham dont get no money.
A statutory instrument which increased court fees and removed the exemption for those claiming income support was held to be ultra vires
Witham dont get no money.
What case
What chapter
2.5 Cases mist be tried fairly and before an independent judiciary citizens must have access to courts
R v Ex parte Witham
2.6 Courts must have powers to review public authorities for compliance with law
Evans v Attorney General
Discuss case
Analogy case.
fundamental to the rule of law that decisions and actions of the executive are subject to necessary well established exceptions (such as declarations of war) and reviewable by the court at the suit of an interested citizen
Evan said decisions of the executive can be reviewed
fundamental to the rule of law that decisions and actions of the executive are subject to necessary well established exceptions (such as declarations of war) and reviewable by the court at the suit of an interested citizen
____said decisions of the executive can be reviewed
2.6 Courts must have powers to review public authorities for compliance with law
Evans v Attorney General
2.4 Non Retroactivity of Law
Philips v Eyre
Discuss Case
Give analogy
he courts will not ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature
philip schofield said u need to be express
he courts will not ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights unless by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature
philip schofield said u need to be express
What case
What chapter
2.4 Non Retroactivity of Law
Philips v Eyre
Who described the prerogative as a relic of the past age?
1965 Lord Reid
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
The case of Proclamations
Discuss Case.
Give analogy
The Case of Proclamations noted that the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him
_____ noted that the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him
Give case
Give chapter
The Case of Proclamations
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Miller v SoS for Exiting European Union
There is no superior form of law than primary legislation
Ultimately, the prerogative is residual, it is only the left over power of the Crown; Dicey discusses it as the name of the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority
There is no superior form of law than primary legislation
Ultimately, the prerogative is residual, it is only the left over power of the Crown; Dicey discusses it as the name of the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority
Give case
Give chapter
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Miller v SoS for Exiting European Union
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel
The government seized the hotel to use as a London Headquarters during WW2 justifying it as being their prerogative to do so in spite of statutory provisions under the Defence Act which conditioned the seizure of land.
HELD:
Gov could not rely on the prerogative where it has been superseded by statute according to Lord Atkinson
He noted that prerogative powers have shrunk as many are replaced by statute such as the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which replied prerogative powers relating to the civil service
The government seized the hotel to use as a London Headquarters during WW2 justifying it as being their prerogative to do so in spite of statutory provisions under the Defence Act which conditioned the seizure of land.
HELD:
Gov could not rely on the prerogative where it has been superseded by statute according to Lord Atkinson
He noted that prerogative powers have shrunk as many are replaced by statute such as the 2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act which replied prerogative powers relating to the civil service
Give case
Give analogy
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
De Keyser’s Royal Hotel
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
BBC v Johns
It is 350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen’s courts to broaden the prerogative. Limits the executive government can impose are now incapable of extension
Think of it as a report
It is 350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen’s courts to broaden the prerogative. Limits the executive government can impose are now incapable of extension
Think of it as a report
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
BBC v Johns
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
R v SoS for HD ex parte Northumbria Police Authority
Northumbria Police Authority did not want the government to arm its officers with crowd control equipment which it regarded as unsafe and they pointed towards statutory authority. The Government argued that its power existed alongside a prerogative power for the Crown to take necessary steps to keep the peace
HELD:
Even though there was no reference to such a power in two centuries of textbooks and case law the COA did not consider this lack of evidence as a lack of existence and noted that the scarcity of reference to this power does not disprove it exists, but rather to an unspoken presumption that it does
Crown to take necessary steps to keep the peace
HELD:
Even though there was no reference to such a power in two centuries of textbooks and case law the COA did not consider this lack of evidence as a lack of existence and noted that the scarcity of reference to this power does not disprove it exists, but rather to an unspoken presumption that it does
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
R v SoS for HD ex parte Northumbria Police Authority
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Banocoult
Case concerned whether orders in council prohibiting native Chagos Islanders from returning to the islands were legal, the HOL went further than the GCHQ case in holding that Orders in Council were also subject to the ordinary grounds of judicial review
The Orders in Council were subject to judicial review: Lord Hoffman
He suggests there is no reason why prerogative legislation should not be subject to the review on ordinary principles of legality, rationality and procedural impropriety in the same way as any other executive action
The Crown DID have power to remove the right of abode of the population: Lord Hoffman
The Crown has plenary legislative authority as it can make or unmake the law of the land
Moreover, the conventional limits of the Crown’s prerogative to legislate for the peace, order and good government could not be read so as to exclude the power to exclude the whole population. The Queen is thus entitled on the advice of her UK Ministers to prefer the interest of the UK
Lord Bingham dissenting, cite Entick v Carrington
The House referred to no instance in which the royal prerogative had been exercised to exile an indigenous population from its homeland. Authority negates the existence of such a power
Case concerned whether orders in council prohibiting native Chagos Islanders from returning to the islands were legal, the HOL went further than the GCHQ case in holding that Orders in Council were also subject to the ordinary grounds of judicial review
The Orders in Council were subject to judicial review: Lord Hoffman
He suggests there is no reason why prerogative legislation should not be subject to the review on ordinary principles of legality, rationality and procedural impropriety in the same way as any other executive action
The Crown DID have power to remove the right of abode of the population: Lord Hoffman
The Crown has plenary legislative authority as it can make or unmake the law of the land Moreover, the conventional limits of the Crown’s prerogative to legislate for the peace, order and good government could not be read so as to exclude the power to exclude the whole population. The Queen is thus entitled on the advice of her UK Ministers to prefer the interest of the UK
Lord Bingham dissenting, cite Entick v Carrington
The House referred to no instance in which the royal prerogative had been exercised to exile an indigenous population from its homeland. Authority negates the existence of such a power
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Banocoult
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union
For many years, under the prerogative, compsentation for criminal injuries had been distributed on a non statutory basis. Parliament placed this on a statutory basis, only coming into force when the SOS for HD chose to enter it.
The Sec decided not to enter it into force and instead introduce a cheaper system under the prerogative.
HELD:
It would be suprising if prerogative powers could be exercised to frustrate the will of Parliament expressed in statute or to an extent the pre empt decision of Parliament
compensation!!
For many years, under the prerogative, compsentation for criminal injuries had been distributed on a non statutory basis. Parliament placed this on a statutory basis, only coming into force when the SOS for HD chose to enter it.
The Sec decided not to enter it into force and instead introduce a cheaper system under the prerogative.
HELD:
It would be suprising if prerogative powers could be exercised to frustrate the will of Parliament expressed in statute or to an extent the pre empt decision of Parliament
compensation!!
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Miller v SoS for Exiting EU
Applicants contended that the prerogative power to decide to withdraw from EU treaties and to notify the EU has bene abrogated by the enactment of the European Communities Act which incorporated EU law into the UK
HELD:
The prerogative cannot be used to change domestic law or domestic rights. Government had no power to unilaterally issue a Notice of Withdrawal from the EU. Ministers require parliamentary approval before they can give such
Applicants contended that the prerogative power to decide to withdraw from EU treaties and to notify the EU has bene abrogated by the enactment of the European Communities Act which incorporated EU law into the UK
HELD:
The prerogative cannot be used to change domestic law or domestic rights. Government had no power to unilaterally issue a Notice of Withdrawal from the EU. Ministers require parliamentary approval before they can give such
3.1 Do Prerogative powers conform to the basic principle that Government action must be justified by clear law?
Miller v SoS for Exiting EU
3.2 Control of Prerogative Powers by the Courts:
GCHQ case
HOL considered a challenge to an instruction made by the PM which prevented staff at GCHQ belonging to a Trade Union.
HELD:
The decision making process had in fact been conducted unfairly but that national security considerations had outweighed the duty to act fairly
OBITER: LORD ROSKILL
He suggested that there are excluded categories of prerogatives such as
-the making of treaties
-the disposal of the armed forces
-defence of the realm
dissolution of Parliament
HOL considered a challenge to an instruction made by the PM which prevented staff at GCHQ belonging to a Trade Union.
HELD:
The decision making process had in fact been conducted unfairly but that national security considerations had outweighed the duty to act fairly
OBITER: LORD ROSKILL
He suggested that there are excluded categories of prerogatives such as
-the making of treaties
-the disposal of the armed forces
-defence of the realm
dissolution of Parliament
3.2 Control of Prerogative Powers by the Courts:
GCHQ case
3.2 Control of Prerogative Powers by the Courts:
Burmah Oil
The prerogative power to seize and destroy property during wartime was held to continue to exist, but that the Government still had a common law obligation to pay compensation
The prerogative power to seize and destroy property during wartime was held to continue to exist, but that the Government still had a common law obligation to pay compensation
3.2 Control of Prerogative Powers by the Courts:
Burmah Oil
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories:
What are the 4 cases considered?
-R v ex parte Rees moggies
R v ex parte Everett
R v ex parte Smith and Others
Abbasi
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies*** R v ex parte Everett R v ex parte Smith and Others Abbasi
confirmed that courts would not entertain challenges to the prerogative power to conclude treaties (in this case Treaty of Maastricht)
(he always treats them right)
confirmed that courts would not entertain challenges to the prerogative power to conclude treaties (in this case Treaty of Maastricht)
(he always treats them right)
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies*** R v ex parte Everett R v ex parte Smith and Others Abbasi
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies R v ex parte Everett *** R v ex parte Smith and Others Abbasi
the courts were competent to review the exercise of the prerogative power of the SoS to issue passports
i need a passport to go to everest
the courts were competent to review the exercise of the prerogative power of the SoS to issue passports
i need a passport to go to everest
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies R v ex parte Everett *** R v ex parte Smith and Others Abbasi
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies R v ex parte Everett R v ex parte Smith and Others *** Abbasi
Concerned a challenge to the policy of the armed forces to completely exclude homosexuals from service. It was held that only the rarest cases would be non-justiciable, those which involved ‘national security’ or where the courts lack the expertise or material to form a judgement
Homosmithuals
Concerned a challenge to the policy of the armed forces to completely exclude homosexuals from service. It was held that only the rarest cases would be non-justiciable, those which involved ‘national security’ or where the courts lack the expertise or material to form a judgement
Homosmithuals
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies R v ex parte Everett R v ex parte Smith and Others *** Abbasi
the court cannot enter the forbidden areas, including decisions affecting foreign policy
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies R v ex parte Everett R v ex parte Smith and Others Abbasi***
3.4 Developments since GCHQ- the whittling away of the excluded categories: What are the 4 cases considered? -R v ex parte Rees moggies R v ex parte Everett R v ex parte Smith and Others *** Abbasi
the court cannot enter the forbidden areas, including decisions affecting foreign policy
What did the Constitutional Reform Act 2010 do?
The power of appointment and regulation of civil servants was a prerogative one
The Act placed the Civil Service Commission on a statutory footing and granted the Minister for the Civil Service the power to manage the civil service
The decision for the executive to sign treaty is a prerogative power and is not justiciable; however the 2010 act contained provisions codifying the Ponsonby Rule, a convention that had applied to the ratification of treaties since 1924
This gave the HOC a veto on treaties
Most treaties must be laid before Parliament and may not be ratified until 21 sitting days pass without the HOC resolving that the treaty may not be ratified
what did the fixed term Parliament act 2011 do?
Previously to this, the power to dissolve Parliament before it expired could be exercised as a discretionary prerogative power by the Crown under the 1715 Act
the Explanatory Notes to the Act, which are not approved by Parliament, explicitly state that the prerogative power has been abolished and that the QUeen has no residual power to dissolve Parliament
Problems?
Repeal of the At was part of the 2017 Conservative Party Manifesto
Though repeal of the act would not reverse the repeal of the 1715 unlessexplicitly added doing so.
Previously to this, the power to dissolve Parliament before it expired could be exercised as a discretionary prerogative power by the Crown under the 1715 Act
the Explanatory Notes to the Act, which are not approved by Parliament, explicitly state that the prerogative power has been abolished and that the QUeen has no residual power to dissolve Parliament
Problems?
Repeal of the At was part of the 2017 Conservative Party Manifesto
Though repeal of the act would not reverse the repeal of the 1715 unlessexplicitly added doing so.
Which reform?
fixed term parliaments act 2011
The power of appointment and regulation of civil servants was a prerogative one
The Act placed the Civil Service Commission on a statutory footing and granted the Minister for the Civil Service the power to manage the civil service
The decision for the executive to sign treaty is a prerogative power and is not justiciable; however the 2010 act contained provisions codifying the Ponsonby Rule, a convention that had applied to the ratification of treaties since 1924
This gave the HOC a veto on treaties
Most treaties must be laid before Parliament and may not be ratified until 21 sitting days pass without the HOC resolving that the treaty may not be
What reform?
constittional reform and governance act 2010
What did the Political and Constittional Reform Committee 2014 do?
-suggested an exhaustive list of prerogative powers exercisable by the PM including;
Orders in Council
to sign or ratify treaties
declare a statement of emergency
etc
The Bill would have also removed Crown immunity from the PM enacting these powers; though no response from the Government to the report was published explicitly added doing so.
-suggested an exhaustive list of prerogative powers exercisable by the PM including;
Orders in Council
to sign or ratify treaties
declare a statement of emergency
etc
The Bill would have also removed Crown immunity from the PM enacting these powers; though no response from the Government to the report was published explicitly added doing so.
Which reform?
Political and Constittional Reform Committee 2014
