Sentences with phrase «crown prerogative»

The court said it was clear that in enacting ECA 1972 Parliament intended to introduce EU law into domestic law in such a way that it could not be undone by exercise of Crown prerogative.

The rare questions accepted to be non-justiciable in Canada are mostly related to exercises of Crown prerogative.

The Committee was also concerned that the retention of Crown copyright and Crown prerogative could give rise to censorship by the government:

Historically, through Crown prerogative and its licensing schemes, the English Crown was able to control and censor printing.

thesis on access to law - related information in Canada in the digital age, I argue that the retention in Canada of Crown copyright and Crown prerogative over printing of statutes (and perhaps case law) and other government law - related information is anachronistic and a damper on easy access to law - related information.

In addition to recommending the abolition of Crown copyright and Crown prerogative in legislative and judicial materials, the Committee extended its recommendations to other government - produced materials that should be made freely available, including:

While the Court acknowledged that a remedy is appropriate in light of the Charter breach, the Court held that its determination of a remedy is precluded by the Crown prerogative over foreign affairs.

He has promised a series of reforms that would disperse power: referendums, an end to Crown Prerogative, a recall mechanism.

Her supporters argue that under Crown prerogative powers the government can take such decisions on its own but the precedent of the 2013 vote (which defeated David Cameron) makes this harder to maintain than it used to do.

Not exact matches

As such, he led efforts in the 1780s for British constitutional reforms which eventually limited the prerogative of the Crown, thereby consolidating parliamentary sovereignty.

Further, they had to reaffirm their loyalty to the Crown though they did their best to maintain as many as possible of the privileges and prerogatives which they had so carefully built up over forty - odd years.

Most of the Monarch's legal powers were lost by the start of the century — the prerogatives of the Crown were and still are exercised by those accountable to the Parliaments of the United Kingdom — but the Monarch's political influence has also declined.

One of the royal prerogative powers derived from the crown, rather than parliament, is the prime minister's ability to commit troops in armed conflict.

That the most Excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hannover Daughter of the most Excellent Princess Elizabeth late Queen of Bohemia Daughter of our late Sovereign Lord King James the First of happy Memory be and is hereby declared to be the next in Succession in the Protestant Line to the Imperiall Crown and Dignity of the [said] Realms of England France and Ireland with the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging after His Majesty and the Princess Ann of Denmark and in Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively and that from and after the Deceases of His said Majesty our now Sovereign Lord and of Her Royall Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark and for Default of Issue of the said Princess Ann and of His Majesty respectively the Crown and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and of the Dominions thereunto belonging with the Royall State and Dignity of the said Realms and all Honours Stiles Titles Regalities Prerogatives Powers Jurisdictions and Authorities to the same belonging and appertaining shall be remain and continue to the said most Excellent Princess Sophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants

There are three main prerogative powers recognised under the common law which still reside in the jurisdiction of the Crown.

But now he is fighting for the prerogative rights of the Crown.

The UK QB ruled unanimously (3 - 0) this fine English morning that the Tory gov» t can not use the Crown's prerogative to initiate the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

However, s. 71 says this about binding the Crown: «No Act or regulation binds Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives unless it expressly states an intention to do so.»

R (MILLER) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION Gordon Nardell QC andTom Leary examine the Supreme Court's judgment in Miller [2017] UKSC 5 and ask where it leaves the Crown's prerogative power to conduct foreign affairs Forget the experts.With William Hill offering odds of 5/2 (a 28 % chance) on the Government winning...

This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely — that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown's prerogative powers.

The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the Community Treaties (now the EU Treaties), and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not.

John, I will do my best (non-legal opinion) to answer your probing questions on the doctrine of paramountcy surrounding Royal Prerogative Powers and «federal pith and substance» as this relates to the Crown in Right of Canada (Monarchy of Canada).

To my knowledge, the British Government has never suggested any legal changes to the prerogative of the Crown on the Monarch's constitutional or personal prerogatives.

As such, Crown copyright and prerogative in legislation and case law and closely - related materials should be abolished.

To the extent that Crown copyright or prerogative reserves to the government the potential for excessive control or censorship over law - related information that is in its possession, this is an unacceptable situation.

For government produced information that is law - related and needed by citizens to enforce or discover their legal rights, the added control provided by Crown copyright and prerogative is anachronous and can potentially lead to censorship.

[111] for the reasons we have set out, we hold the Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union.

A court case, MacCormick v Lord Advocate, contesting the style «Elizabeth II» within Scotland, was decided in 1953 that the numbering of monarchs was part of the royal prerogative, and that the plaintiffs had no title to sue the Crown.

Guergis» action against Harper and his ministers for conspiracy, defamation, misfeasance in public office, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and negligence was dismissed on the basis that the former prime minister's decisions were protected by the exercise of Crown privilege and parliamentary prerogative.

But with regard even to these crown grants, where the royal prerogative is entitled to the most indulgence, and where the grant is made at the suit of the grantee, there are a variety of cases where valuable rights, privileges and franchises pass by necessary implication.

All those cited in support of the rule are cases of crown or prerogative grants; and these, as strongly intimated by Chief Justice EYRE, 2 H. Bl.

In R (on the application of Gina Miller and Ors) v The Secretary of State for the European Union, the High Court, in a masterly exposition of the principles of constitutional law and statutory interpretation, held that the Secretary of State did not have the power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice under Article 50 and thereby begin the process under which the United Kingdom will leave the European Union.

For clarity, the royal prerogative is a collection of executive powers held by the Crown, since the Middle - Ages, and by the Government to enable them to perform their constitutional functions.

According to the theory of the British Constitution, all vacant lands are vested in the Crown, and the exclusive power to grant them is admitted to reside in the Crown, as a branch of the royal prerogative.

The exercise of the prerogative power of the Crown can be reviewed for constitutionality - therefore Canada can be challenged on whether a duty to consult exists with regard to CCFIPPA.

It referenced as support section 71 of the Legislation Act, 2006 which provides «No Act or regulation binds Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives unless it expressly states an intention to do so» and section 4 (2) of the LRA which provides «Except as provided in subsection (1), this Act does not bind the Crown».

If the claim is justiciable and within the proper bounds of the court's role, the exercise by the Crown of its prerogative power is consistent with domestic constitutional law.

There was a fundamental common law rule that had existed for centuries that the Crown can not by use of the royal prerogative change the law or deprive people of their statutory rights.

«Individuals may say or do what they please, provided they do not transgress the substantive law, or infringe the legal rights of others... public authorities (including the Crown) may do nothing but what they are authorised to do by some rule of the common law (including the royal prerogative) or statute, and in particular they may not interfere with the liberties of individuals without statutory authority.»

Underhill J acknowledged that it was well established that the Crown may not use prerogative or other common law powers in a field which is already the subject of statutory regulation.

«Parliament having taken the major step of switching on the direct effect of EU law in the national legal systems by passing the ECA 1972 as primary legislation, it is not plausible to suppose that it intended that the Crown should be able by its own unilateral action under its prerogative powers to switch it off again» (at [87]-RRB-.

The wide and profound extent of the legal changes in domestic law created by ECA 1972 made it especially unlikely that Parliament intended to leave their continued existence in the hands of the Crown through the exercise of its prerogative powers.

The decision ended: «For the reasons we have set out, we hold that the secretary of state does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Art 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) for the UK to withdraw from the EU.»

The government's submissions on s 2 (1) of ECA 1972 «gave no value to the usual constitutional principle that, unless Parliament legislates to the contrary, the Crown should not have power to vary the law of the land by the exercise of its prerogative powers» (at [84]-RRB-.

The judge had failed to address the principle that the Crown can not through its prerogative power change any part of the law of the land.

Should the Crown's powers be limited to prerogative and statute?