Under
the monarchial constitution of the United Kingdom, the majority of prerogative
powers are nowadays exercised by the government of the day or the judiciary in
the name of the Crown. Two principal authoritative definitions are relied on by
the courts today; that of Sir William Blackstone and that of Professor A.V.
Dicey. From this we can see that the prerogative is inherent in and peculiar to
the Crown, prerogatives are recognized by the courts, the rights and powers are
residual: they cover areas over which Parliament has not enacted statutes and
they can be limited by Parliament and the prerogative legitimises executive
actions without the need for an Act of Parliament. The definitions give rise to
a number of questions. On the one hand, the executive has too much power to
exercise in the name of the Crown which leads to a problem of abuse of power. On
the other hand, it makes the scope of the prerogative power ambiguous and it
seems that the prerogative power is somehow in conflict and inconsistence with
Acts of Parliament. Therefore, it is essential for the courts and Parliament to
prevent the abuse of such powers through case law and enactment.
Since
1688, majority of the prerogative power has transferred to the executive. There
were number of cases that the defendants sought for jurisdiction after the
executive exercised the prerogative power in areas where no enacted statutes
protected. Traditionally, as noted above, the courts had jurisdiction to decide
whether a prerogative existed and, if so, its scope. Judges would not examine
the merits of the exercise of the prerogative. In the case of Attorney General
v de Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd (1920), the House of Lords ruled that where an
Act of Parliament covers the same scope as a prerogative, the Act of Parliament
prevails and the prerogative – if not expressly abolished – is placed is
abeyance (effectively suspended). Accordingly, the government could not choose
to use the prerogative to award a lesser amount of compensation for occupation
of property in wartime than the amount provided for under the Defence of the
Realm Acts. In Laker Airways v Department of Trade (1977), it was held that a
prerogative – in this case the treaty-making power – could not be used to
defeat a right granted under an Act of Parliament. In R v Secretary of State
for the Home Department ex parte Northumbria Police Authority (1985), the Court
of Appeal ruled that the Home Secretary had the power to issue weaponry to
police forces under the prerogative. This applied even though no direct
authority could be found for there being a prerogative ‘to keep the peace’ as
the Home Secretary claimed. This was notwithstanding the Police Act 1964 which
provided, inter alia, that such items could be issued following a request of
the Police Authority and made no mention of the Home Secretary’s power to issue
the items on his own initiative. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
ex parte Fire Brigades’ Union (1992), the House of Lords ruled that the Home
Secretary had no power under the prerogative to amend the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Scheme – itself set up under the prerogative – where an Act of
Parliament provided for its amendment (even though the relevant provisions had
not been brought into force).
In
an important case of Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil
Service (1985), The Prime Minister, acting in her capacity as Minister for the
Civil Service, issued an oral instruction under the Civil Service Order in
Council 1982 (an order of the Privy Council authorising the use of the
prerogative) banning continued membership of trade unions at GCHQ, the
government’s communications headquarters – an ‘intelligence’ facility which
collects signals intelligence from around the world. The union challenged this
exercise of power, claiming that there was a breach of natural justice in the
failure of the government to continue negotiations in an industrial relations
dispute. The government, having lost in the High Court, pleaded national
security in the Court of Appeal and won. The House of Lords upheld the decision
of the Court of Appeal, ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to intervene
in matters of national security. It was shown that the courts had the
jurisdiction to review (through judicial review proceedings) prerogative acts
in the same manner as acts under an Act of Parliament. Also, the House of Lords
ruled that while there was equal power to review, the courts would only review
prerogative acts that did not involve matters of high policy, which were best
left to be determined by the executive. Since the GCHQ case a number of further
issues have been regarded as justiciable. For example, in the case of R v
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Everett
(1989), it was held that the prerogative power to issue passports is
reviewable.
There
are two principal means by which Parliament may control exercises of the
prerogative. First Parliament may decide to abolish the prerogative and place
the relevant powers under statutory authority. Second, Parliament will call the
government to account for its exercise of the prerogative. Parliament may also declare
certain former prerogative powers to be unlawful and place them firmly within
Parliament’s power. A recent example is the Treasure Act 1996 which abolished
the prerogative to treasure trove. However, we shall see below that unless the
prerogative is expressly abolished, it will remain as a source of power but one
which cannot be exercised while a statute regulating the same subject matter is
in force. Theoretically Parliament has ample powers to scrutinize exercises of
the prerogative through such procedures as question time, debates and Select
Committee enquiries. In practice, however, the extent of scrutiny is more
problematic. By convention there are a number of matters that are immune from
parliamentary questions. These include: matters relating to the appointment of
ministers, dissolution of Parliament, judicial appointments, government
contracts, national security, diplomatic relations, and issues governed by
confidentiality. In relation to defence, there are precedents for not answering
questions on details of arms sales, operational matters and the giving of
military assistance to other states. Advice given by Law Officers of the Crown
is also immune from questioning, as is the decision whether or not to prosecute
taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provides for parliamentary
scrutiny of treaties and a statutory basis for the civil service. The
Parliament Act 2011 also brings the dissolution of Parliament under statutory
authority, thereby removing the power of the Crown over the dissolution of
Parliament. All reform of the prerogative, however, entails constitutional and
legal challenges. It has also been seen in relation to the GCHQ case that the
courts have developed a category of non-justiciable matters which protect the
judges from encroaching on decision which, in the light of separation of
powers, are within the proper sphere of decision of the democratically
accountable executive.
It
is common in all constitution that there will be a number of powers reserved to
the executive. However, it must be controlled because the prerogative power
would give rise to the problem of abuse of power and injustice. The prerogative
power, in nature, is not consistent with the concept of democracy because it is
not enough accountable to the citizen. Under the British constitution, without
strict separation of powers, Parliament and the courts have the power to
intervene the exercise of the prerogative power by the executive. However, the
parliamentary control along with the judicial control over the exercise of
prerogative power is not adequate. There is still a reservoir of power is not
amenable to either controls.