Illustrating your answer with case law, assess the extent to which the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is controlled by the courts. Should the exercise of the royal prerogative be subject to more stringent control by parliament or the courts?
Illustrating your answer with case law, assess the extent to which the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is controlled by the courts. Should the exercise of the royal prerogative be subject to more stringent control by parliament or the courts? In this essay I will be examining how far the Royal Prerogative is controlled by the courts after it has been exercised by the executive. I will then discuss whether the prerogative should be controlled by the courts or parliament, and how strict this should be. The royal prerogatives are powers and privileges recognized in common law as belonging to the Crown sometimes referred to as residuary discretionary powers. However, most prerogative acts are performed by the government of the day in the name of the crown. As by prerogative the Crown is immune from prosecution Certain prerogatives are only performed by the crown on the prime minister's advice, such as the dissolution of parliament. Some prerogatives such as powers to appoint and award honours are performed by the Crown, who will also conduct the relevant ceremonies, but decisions as to who will be honoured are made on the advice given by the government. Both Dicey and Blackstone tried to give their interpretation of a prerogative. Dicey argued that, 'an act that can be performed lawfully without an Act of Parliament, is done in virtue of this prerogative'. Blackstone's
There is no absolute separation of powers in this country, in a variety of important ways ideas of the separation of powers have shaped constitutional arrangements and influenced our constitutional thinking, and continue to do so" Discuss.
"While we must grant that there is no absolute separation of powers in this country, in a variety of important ways ideas of the separation of powers have shaped constitutional arrangements and influenced our constitutional thinking, and continue to do so." Discuss, including consideration of relevant caselaw. The separation of powers is at the heart of a democratic constitution as it ensures that no one body accumulates too much power as to simply dictate to the people, as Lord Acton said 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely' Although within the UK the separation of powers is not as clear as in other liberal democracies, it does still influence the everyday operations of the executive, legislature and judiciary1. As Barnett argued 'Separation of powers...runs like a thread throughout the constitution of the United Kingdom'2 The principle of the separation of powers assumes that certain functions should be carried out by different institutions and that no one institution should trespass into the territory of another. As Montesquieu argued 'All would be lost if the same man or the same ruling body...were to exercise these three powers'3 This interpretation of the separation of powers has been put into effect in the vast majority of liberal democracies around the world with the likes of the USA and Japan adhering to the orthodox understanding of the
The Constitution of United Kingdom In Comparison with the Constitution of Russia
Constitutional Law The Constitution of United Kingdom In Comparison with the Constitution of Russia Introduction: Constitutional law is concerned with the role and powers of the institutions within the state and with the relationship between the citizen and the state . Thus, it tends to concentrate on the relation between the primary organs of sovereign power (for example, Parliament and the judiciary) and the fundamental principles of constitutionalism, such as the rule of law. All constitutional law presupposes the existence of a constitution, whether written or not. A constitution sets out the relationship between individuals and the Government. It is a document that sets out necessary rules for the framework and operation of state institutions, for example defining the powers of the state and its agencies . Who can do what and where the limits of power are. This can only be of value if people feel an ownership of their constitution and other institutions are open and fair. This essay will examine the constitutional law of the United Kingdom in comparison with the constitutional law of Russia. To do so a brief background and history will be discussed in order to explain how the current constitutional law of these two countries came about. An Introduction to the United Kingdom and Russia's Constitution Similarly, the study of constitution of the United Kingdom and
Parliamentary sovereignty. " Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General . Discuss
'Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute ... It is no longer right to say that [Parliament's] freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified'. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, per Lord Hope of Craighead). At the heart of the British Constitution lies the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The sovereignty of the parliament is predominantly defined by Dicey as: "Parliament having the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament"1. Further Dicey stated that there are three key rules that need to be followed for the Parliament to be absolutely sovereign and these are the following: Parliament can make or unmake any law; Parliament cannot bind its successors and most importantly that no one can question Parliament's laws. Historically the principle received statutory recognition in the Bill of Rights 16892 where it was stated: ""That the pretended power of super sending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority without
Parliamentary Supremacy - the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion.
In the year of 1973, the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community. Twenty years later, the UK signed the Treaty on European Union (or Maastricht Treaty) and became a member state of the European Union1[MD1]. Being a highly controversial and debated topic, the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion. Parliamentary supremacy is a key principle of the British constitution that is based on the concept that Parliament is the supreme maker of English legislation and has the power to make or unmake any law they see fit.2 Whether these laws were morally or politically improper, did not matter as Parliamentary supremacy permitted Parliament to make such laws and they would still be held valid (Madzimbamuto)3. The constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey had very strong views on Parliamentary sovereignty and described it as 'the keystone of the law of the Constitution'. He believed that since the laws which were passed through Parliament were subject to intense scrutiny, it would be ensured that only good laws would make it through Parliament. In effect, these laws made by Parliament were not restricted by neither content nor territorial region.4 This idea was utilised by Sir Ivor Jennings who gave the well-known example of Parliament
“It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British Constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on the separation of powers” - Consider the extent to which this view is accurate.
"It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British Constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on the separation of powers" - Duport Steels V Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142, per Lord Diplock Consider the extent to which this view is accurate. Illustrate your answer with reference to decided cases. It is important to realise that the separation of powers is not something which has been drawn up by someone, nor is it a legal theory, but a doctrine, which has continuously been debated about by various academics and judges, having opposing views and opinions about its significance and existence. It is endlessly argued whether the unwritten British Constitution is the starting point of beliefs and principles set by a group of people, which we call the Separation of Powers. In the UK, there are three main powers that make up the constitution. They are in the form of: - - The Legislature - This is parliament. Parliament is the supreme body, which is built up by the House of Lords and the House of Commons and has the function of law making. - The Executive - This is the Government. The function of the government is to run the country in the interest of the general public. The Prime Minister, the civil services, the police and other ministers make up the government of a country - The Judiciary - The final division of a states' activity is in the form of the courts. It is
UK constitution
"The adoption of a [written constitution] would be a hazardous affair; it... risks forcing through unpopular or concealed changes to the constitution, it risks shifting political power from democratic institutions towards the judiciary" N.W. Barber "Against a written constitution" (2008) public law 11 at p.11 Explain and evaluate the arguments for and against a written constitution for the UK, taking into account the significant issues raised by the quotation above. Explain and defend your own view. This essay is going to explore and investigate the arguments both, for and against the adoption of a written constitution within the United Kingdom. First it is necessary to define what a constitution is and what the UK's constitution consists of. A constitution is broadly described as being a body of rules and responsibilities if the major organs and officers of government and with the relations between them. [1]In a narrower sense a constitution refers to a single document or written statement of a state's or country's constitutional rules in a documentary or codified form [2] . Britain is often mistakenly referred to as having an unwritten constitution which is misleading and would be untrue to say that the UK does not possess a written constitution; as strictly speaking much of the constitution can be found in the written documents such as Acts of parliaments.[3] Unlike
Rule of Law
4. The Sixth Sir David Williams Lecture- The Rule of Law The difficulty of formulating an accurate definition for the Rule of Law has long been recognised by the authors of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The task of definition has therefore been left to the courts, leaving room for the meaning of the concept to somewhat evolve over time. Lord Bingham accepts that such a task of definition is a challenge, but nevertheless attempts it by examining its implications, which are presented in a series of eight sub-rules. The first of his proposed sub-rules states that 'the laws must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable.'1 In other words, people who are bound by the law must be able to find out what it is without undue difficulty. Legislative hyperactivity poses a threat to the proposed rule -'in 2004, some 3500 pages of primary legislation; in 2003, nearly 9000 pages of statutory instrument'2- as the sheer volume of legislation in itself raises problems of accessibility. Law judgments create similar problems due to their thorough and consequently lengthy nature. However, the superiority of common law judgments over single Privy Council judgments holds true, as a single judgment supported by very concise concurrences can cause continuing problems of interpretation. Lord Bingham's second sub-rule affirms that legal issues should be resolved
Role of The Ombudsman
PUBLIC LAW 1: ASSIGMENT 2 971 Words An essay on the ombudsmen _____________________________________________________ This essay considers the role of ombudsmen in resolving disputes in contrast to the role played by the judiciary. In answering this question it will be noted that the ombudsman system does not overlap with the judiciary, but rather, it closes the gaps created by the judiciary. It will be argued that although the system has advantages over the judiciary, it also has limitations. Though the question refers to ombudsmen in general, the essay will make reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in discussing the role played by ombudsmen how this role may be improved. Introduction The ombudsman has emerged as an effective method of dispute resolution in today's world. Its ideologies have been accepted widely as an attractive alternative to litigation. Consequently, it provides the public with remedial action where none is available through courts. Unlike courts, the ombudsman's services are cost effective, flexible, and informal. These qualities have contributed to its success in seeking justice against bad decisions. The origin The ombudsman concept has existed since the 19th century. Sweden was the first country to introduce an 'ombudsman' whose role was to investigate complaints from ordinary citizens.1 However, it wasn't until 1967
![Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.[1] Despite being the Mo](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/888953/listing/888953_1.jpg)