OU blog

Personal Blogs

Barnhill, Jura. June 2015. (Thanks to the kindness of the Fletcher family).

The Royal Prerogative

Visible to anyone in the world

In the course of Helen Mountfield Q.C.’s submissions on behalf of parties (Pigney and others) concerned that their circumstances might be adversely impacted upon by the UK’s secession from the EU, Lord Carnwath raised the point that, prior to incorporation into domestic law through statute, international obligations under the UK’s adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights[1] could have been removed by virtue of the Government’s use of Prerogative Powers because those rights existed, until that point, in international law but not, directly, in domestic law.

Lord Reed then raised the instance of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and discussion led to the circumstances of GCHQ.

A useful discussion of the issues (lying as they do at the very heart of the Brexit case) against and in favour of the use of the Prerogative can be found in an Adjournment Motion[2] on the Royal Prerogative in April 1993 HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 .[3]



[1] Always to be distinguished from EU law. See, for a helpful summary distinction, from para. 15, Lord Neuberger’s lecture, Has the identity of the English Common Law been eroded by EU Laws and the European Convention On Human Rights?1 Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, 18 August 2016 https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-160818-01.pdf


Permalink
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 191219