header-logo header-logo

17 February 2017 / Richard Wilson KC
Issue: 7734 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Water & oil: law & politics

nlj_7734_wilson

Politics & the law were kept well apart in the Supreme Court’s erudite judgment in Miller, as Richard Wilson QC explains

  • Parliamentary supremacy and prerogative powers.
  • The decision of the majority on the principal issue is consistent with long-established UK law.

It is a well-established principle of UK constitutional law that Parliament—not the government—is supreme over our domestic law: Case of Proclamations (1610), The Zamora case (1916), and the Tin Council case (1990) (reported as H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, [1989] 3 All ER 523).

The Royal Prerogative (“prerogative powers”) encompasses the residue of powers that remain vested in the Crown, but are now exercisable by ministers of the UK government, provided the exercise is consistent with Parliamentary legislation.

The exercise of prerogative powers cannot change domestic law. That is a matter for Parliament. Treaties are not part of domestic law. So ministers may exercise prerogative powers to make or withdraw from international treaties, provided that such exercise

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law

Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi

New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish

Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll