http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~nlawwww/articles3/leigh3.html [1995] 3 Web JC !

5"#$5 w%r&s

'() *+)+,-.'!/)" )-!0 .'!/) *,W)+" .12 '() 2)3,C+.'!C 2)4!C!': '() 4!+) 5+!-.2)0 61!,1 C.0)
b7

!an eigh
+ea&er in *ublic aw" 1ewcastle aw 0ch%%l" 6ni8ersit7 %9 1ewcastle up%n '7ne" :!an. eigh;ncl.ac.uk< C%p7right 1995 !an eigh 4irst *ublishe& in Web J%urnal %9 Current egal !ssues in ass%ciati%n with 5lackst%ne *ress t&. Summary 'he recent &ecisi%n %9 the (%use %9 %r&s in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] = W + >#> raises imp%rtant c%nstituti%nal ?uesti%ns ab%ut the e@tent t% which the g%8ernment is re?uire& t% seek *arliamentar7 appr%8al 9%r its p%licies %r ma7 rel7 instea& %n prer%gati8e p%wers. 'his n%te c%nsi&ers the implicati%ns %9 the ruling that the (%me 0ecretar7 acte& unlaw9ull7 in intr%&ucing a re8ise& criminal inAuries c%mpensati%n scheme un&er the prer%gati8e p%wer" rather than implementing the statut%r7 scheme un&er the Criminal Justice .ct 19BB. !t is argue& that the (%use %9 %r&s reache& the right &ecisi%n" but 9%r the wr%ng reas%ns. Contents
'he !ssues 'he *rer%gati8e an& the egislati%n 4ailure t% !mplement egislati%n C%nclusi%n

Bibliography

'() !006)0

0ince its establishment in 19#> the Criminal !nAuries C%mpensati%n 0cheme has been a 9ertile s%urce %9 challenges t% the e@ercise %9 e@ecuti8e p%wer. 'his is perhaps ine8itable where large sums %9 public m%ne7 are &istribute& t% 8ictims %9 crime thr%ugh a n%nCstatut%r7 pr%ce&ure g%8erne& b7 ministerial gui&elines" with%ut 9%rmal Au&icial &eterminati%n" %r clear appellate rights. D(arl%w an& +awlings 19B>" 3BBC 39BE. 0ince the lan&mark &ecisi%n %9 R v Criminal Inj ries Compensation Board, ex parte !ain [19#F] = G.5. B#>" which establishe& that &ecisi%ns %9 the C!C5 were re8iewable an& lai& the 9%un&ati%ns 9%r the m%&ern re8iew %9 the prer%gati8e in general" there has been a stea&7 trickle %9 such cases. !t was t% &eal with l%ngC stan&ing criticisms %9 this kin& that a statut%r7 scheme t% replace the prer%gati8e %ne was enacte& in the Criminal Justice .ct 19BB" ss 1$BC11F an& sche&ules # an& F. 'his belate&l7 implemente& %ne %9 the rec%mmen&ati%ns %9 the *ears%n C%mmissi%n D"he Royal Commission on Civil !ia#ility and Compensation for $ersonal Inj ry, Cmnd% &'()*I +,-&-., ch% /-E. 4%ll%wing $earson" the .ct pr%8i&e& 9%r a s7stem %9 pa7ments as %9 right Drather than e@ gratia pa7mentsE which 9%ll%we& the appr%ach t% c%mpensati%n %9 8ictims in t%rt" a&ministere& b7 a statut%r7 c%rp%rati%n" an& with an appeal %n a p%int %9 law t% the (igh C%urt. (%we8er" the g%8ernment 9aile& t% bring the statut%r7 pr%8isi%ns int% 9%rce an&" instea&" re8ise& the n%nCstatut%r7 scheme in 199$. !n 1993 the (%me 0ecretar7 ann%unce& thr%ugh a White *aper DCompensating 0ictims of 0iolent Crime1 Changes to the Criminal Inj ries Compensation Scheme, Cm% /)2) +,--2. E the intr%&ucti%n %9 a new n%nCstatut%r7 scheme Dthe Criminal !nAuries C%mpensati%n 'ari99 0chemeE. 'his was 9%ll%we& b7 a 9urther ann%uncement in 199> that the 19BB .ct pr%8isi%ns w%ul& n%t be br%ught int% 9%rce an& w%ul& be repeale& at a c%n8enient %pp%rtunit7. C%mpensati%n un&er the new scheme was t% be g%8erne& b7 a 9latCrate tari99 9%r &i99erent categ%ries %9 inAur7" rather than b7 case b7 case c%nsi&erati%n" with n% speci9ic awar& 9%r special &amages %r l%ss %9 earnings. .lth%ugh the g%8ernment claime& that this scheme w%ul& be simpler 9%r claimants" an& w%ul& n%t preAu&ice m%st 8ictims" it als% estimate& that b7 the 9inancial 7ear =$$$/$1 the annual c%st w%ul& be hal9 that %9 c%ntinuing with the e@isting scheme. 'hese plans ar%use& %pp%siti%n 9r%m public sect%r uni%ns in particular" wh%se members were likel7 t% be w%rse %99 un&er the new arrangements in respect %9 inAuries arising 9r%m criminal acts an& su99ere& in the c%urse %9 their empl%7ment. *arliamentar7 criticism %9 the (%me 0ecretar7Hs plans pr%8e& ine99ecti8e" an& an amen&ment t% the Criminal Justice an& *ublic ,r&er 5ill 199> t% c%mpel the intr%&ucti%n %9 the 19BB .ct scheme was &e9eate&. (%we8er" 9%r reas%ns best kn%wn t% itsel9" the g%8ernment &i& n%t make use %9 the %pp%rtunit7 %9 that 5ill t% repeal the unimplemente& scheme either. 'he curi%us state %9 arreste&" preCnatal" &e8el%pment in which the law ha& been le9t C unimplemente& but unrepeale& C was t% pr%8e the (%me 0ecretar7Hs un&%ing when the battle shi9te& t% the c%urts. 'he applicants in the Fire Brigades Union case argue& that intr%&ucti%n %9 a new n%nC statut%r7 scheme was unlaw9ul in the sense either that the minister was in breach %9 the pr%8isi%ns 9%r the intr%&ucti%n %9 the 19BB scheme" %r that the e@istence %9 the unimplemente&" but unrepeale&" statut%r7 scheme pre8ente& the intr%&ucti%n %9 a wh%ll7 &i99erent scheme. 1%t surprisingl7" since it in8%l8e& 9un&amental c%nstituti%nal c%nsi&erati%ns" the issue &i8i&e& b%th the C%urt %9 .ppeal an& the (%use %9 %r&sH appellate c%mmittee" alth%ugh a maA%rit7 in each c%urt hel& the (%me 0ecretar7Hs acti%n t% be unlaw9ul. 'he &i8isi%n %9 %pini%n centre& up%n which %9 tw% alternati8e 9%rmulati%ns sh%ul& be a&%pte&. )ither the case c%ul& be

un&erst%%& as an attack %n the Dn%nCEuse %9 the (%me 0ecretar7Hs p%wer t% make a c%mmencement %r&er un&er the Criminal Justice .ct 19BB" s 1F1. ,r it c%ul& be un&erst%%& as being c%ncerne& with limiting the prer%gati8e p%wer t% intr%&uce a new scheme" because %9 the e@istence %9 unimplemente& amen&ing legislati%n. 5r%a&l7" the sec%n& was the 8iew taken b7 the maA%rit7 in the C%urt %9 .ppeal +R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union and 3thers [1995] 1 .ll )+ BBBE" while the maA%rit7 in the (%use %9 %r&s D[1995] = W + >#>E pre9erre& the 9irst appr%ach. . maA%rit7 %9 the C%urt %9 .ppeal hel& that the c%mmencement secti%n create& n% en9%rceable &ut7 in the (%me 0ecretar7 t% bring the legislati%n int% 9%rce at an7 particular time D0ir 'h%mas 5ingham" 3+ &issenting h%l&ing that it create& a ?uali9ie& &ut7" but that there ha& been n% breach %n the 9actsE. (%we8er" a &i99erent maA%rit7 hel& D(%bh%use J &issentingE that the (%me 0ecretar7 ha& acte& unlaw9ull7 in using the prer%gati8e t% intr%&uce the new scheme since the 19BB .ct suspen&e& the prer%gati8e in this area. 5%th p%ints were cr%ssCappeale& t% the (%use %9 %r&s. 'heir %r&ships hel& D9%ll%wing (%bh%use JHs &issenting Au&gmentE that the prer%gati8e was n%t suspen&e& since the rele8ant pr%8isi%ns %9 the .ct were n%t in 9%rce. 'he7 agree& als% that the .ct create& n% en9%rceable &ut7 t% bring it int% e99ect. (%we8er" a maA%rit7 hel& D %r&s Ieith an& 3ustill &issentingE that the (%me 0ecretar7 was un&er a &ut7 t% keep implementati%n %9 the .ct un&er c%nsi&erati%n an& that the ann%uncement in the White *aper" t%gether with the intr%&ucti%n %9 new scheme" were an unlaw9ul renunciati%n %9 this p%wer" which w%ul& be ?uashe&. 'his n%te will e@amine each appr%ach in turn.

'() *+)+,-.'!/) .12 )-!0 .'!,1

,ne pr%minent writer has argue& that c%mpensati%n %9 the 8ictims %9 crime is n%t an e@ercise %9 a true prer%gati8e at all since it is n% &i99erent in character t% the establishment %9 a pri8ate trust DWa&e 19B9" 59C#$ E. 'his 8iew str%ngl7 9a8%urs 5lackst%neHs emphasis %n the Hsingular an& eccentricalH nature %9 true prer%gati8e p%wer %8er 2ice7Hs acc%unt gr%un&e& %n its &iscreti%nar7 character Dsee generall7" 3unr% 19BF" ch. B E. (%we8er" the 8iew that c%mpensati%n is prer%gati8e matter because it is n%nCstatut%r7" an& is als% akin t% the &istributi%n %9 cr%wn b%unt7" is t%% &eepl7 r%%te& in the Au&icial c%nsci%usness t% be aban&%ne& n%w. !n the C%urt %9 .ppeal" 0ir 'h%mas 5ingham 3+ re9erre& t% pre8i%us Au&icial pr%n%uncements Dwith%ut re9erring t% Wa&eHs argumentE as &eterminati8e %9 the prer%gati8e character issue D[1995] 1 .ll )+ at B9#E. ,nl7 (%bh%use J t%%k a &i99erent appr%ach when he argue& D&issentingE that the rec%gniti%n %9 the new scheme in the .ppr%priati%n .ct 199> was su99icient auth%rit7 9%r the (%me 0ecretar7Hs acti%n with%ut rec%urse t% the prer%gati8e D[1995] 1 .ll )+ at 9$>C9$#E. (%we8er" i9 the .ppr%priati%n .ct is regar&e& as a s%urce %9 p%wer 9%r the new scheme" the same w%ul& appl7 t% %l&er 8ersi%ns %9 the scheme" which ha8e been treate& as &eri8e& 9r%m the prer%gati8e" n%twithstan&ing an annual 8%te in the estimates an& the .ppr%priati%n .ct. (%bh%use J &i& n%t 9%ll%w thr%ugh the l%gic %9 his %wn p%siti%n" an&" in an7 e8ent" the argument was n%t pursue& in the (%use %9 %r&s. 'he m%re &i99icult ?uesti%n is whether the 9acts raise& a ?uesti%n c%ncerning the suspensi%n %9 the prer%gati8e b7 statute. !9 the 19BB .ct ha& been in 9%rce then clearl7" un&er the wellCkn%wn rule in 45 v De 6eyser7s Royal Hotel !td% [19=$] .C 5$B" the .ct w%ul& ha8e been taken t% ha8e suspen&e& the prer%gati8e p%wer t%

intr%&uce 9urther c%mpensati%n schemes 9%r 8ictims %9 crime at 8ariance with the statut%r7 scheme. ,n the %ther han&" i9 the .ct ha& ne8er been passe&" the prer%gati8e w%ul& ha8e been a8ailable t% intr%&uce an amen&e& scheme" subAect t% Au&icial re8iew %9 the pr%8isi%ns %9 the scheme. 'hat the scheme was subAect t% Au&icial re8iew was accepte& b7 the C%urt %9 .ppeal in R v CICB and another, ex parte $ and another [1995] 1 .ll )+ BF$ Dan unsuccess9ul attempt t% re8iew the substance %9 the new scheme %n gr%un&s %9 irrati%nalit7EJ in practice a challenge %9 this t7pe w%ul& be unlikel7 t% succee&" unless there was clear ba& 9aith. 'he 9acts in the Fire Brigades Union case 9ell s%mewhere between the tw% p%les. 'he maA%rit7 in the C%urt %9 .ppeal e@ten&e& the De 6eyser7s principle b7 anal%g7" whereas the (%use %9 %r&s hel& that the &%ctrine c%ul& n%t %perate until the legislati%n was in 9%rce Dsee %r& Ieith %9 Iinkel [1995] = W + at >#F" %r& 5r%wneCWilkins%n" i#id%, >F5" %r& 3ustill" i#id%, >B5" an& %r& l%7& %9 5erwick" i#id%, >93E. 'he %r&sH &ecisi%n in e99ect treats the prer%gati8e as a s%urce %9 law e?ui8alent t% legislati%n: it can %nl7 be repeale& b7 later legislati%n which is itsel9 in 9%rce. 'his is appealing %n gr%un&s %9 s7mmetr7 an& l%gic" but can be criticise& as an %8erl7 mechanical appr%ach" which attributes m%re clarit7 an& certaint7 t% prer%gati8e p%wer than is Austi9ie&. .lth%ugh it ma7 be t%% late t% create new prer%gati8es" the e@act sc%pe %9 man7 prer%gati8e p%wers remains wh%ll7 unclear until litigate&. !n e99ect" there9%re" as a s%urce %9 law" the prer%gati8e is gi8en a latent p%tential which greatl7 e@ceee&s that %9 unimplemente& Dbut precise an& &etaile&E statut%r7 pr%8isi%ns. *art %9 the pr%blem is that the rati% %9 De 6eyser7s itsel9 is unclear D9%r earlier &iscussi%ns %9 the &i99iculties see: 3arkensis 19F3" =99C3$FJ 3unr% 19BF" 1#9C1F=. !n that case the (%use %9 %r&s hel& that the Cr%wn was n%t entitle& t% 9all back %n the prer%gati8e when re?uisiti%ning lan& &uring the 4irst W%rl& WarJ instea& it was b%un& b7 statut%r7 pr%8isi%ns un&er which c%mpensati%n was pa7able. (%we8er" the speeches c%ntain three n%ticeabl7 &i99erent 8ersi%ns %9 wh7 the relati%nship between the prer%gati8e an& statute sh%ul& pr%&uce this result. 'he narr%west was that %9 %r& *arm%%r" wh% argue& that when *arliament has place& statut%r7 limits %n a prer%gati8e e@ercisable b7 the e@ecuti8e which inter9eres with pr%pert7 %r the libert7 %9 subAects" th%se limits are bin&ing in 9a8%ur %9 the subAect D[19=$] .C at 5B5E. (%we8er" this 8iew w%ul& suggest that a &i99erent appr%ach is %pen where the prer%gati8e in ?uesti%n &%es n%t inter9ere with the subAect %r c%n9ers a bene9it Dsuch as a pa7ment %9 c%mpensati%nE rather than a restricti%n %9 libert7. !t has in 9act been use& in this wa7 t% suggest that a statute sh%ul& n%t eclipse the prer%gati8e where there is n% attempt un&er the prer%gati8e t% &epri8e the subAect %9 rights D(%bh%use J [1995] 1 .ll )+ at 9$#J an& c9. *urchas J in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte 8orth m#ria $olice 4 thority [19BB] 1 .ll )+ 55#" 5F1E. (%we8er" the pr%blem with such an appr%ach is that where the prer%gati8e c%n9ers a bene9it but the statute c%n9ers a greater %ne" 9%r the Cr%wn t% rel7 %n prer%gati8e pr%&uces a net &etrimentJ in %ther w%r&s the c%mparis%n %ught t% be between the p%siti%n un&er the prer%gati8e an& that un&er statute" n%t with s%me h7p%thetical situati%n in which the statute is taken n%t t% e@ist. 'he sec%n& 8iew 9r%m De 6eyser7s is that m%st c%mm%nl7 cite& C that %9 %r& .tkins%n" that when a statute is passe& an& is in 9%rce D %r& .tkins%n is the %nl7 %ne %9 their %r&ships t% menti%n the .ct being in 9%rceE the prer%gati8e p%wer is in abe7ance" because the Cr%wn has assente& t% the .ct an& is b%un& b7 it D[19=$] .C 5$BE. 'his 8iew supp%rts the appr%ach taken b7 (%bh%use J in the C%urt %9 .ppeal an& b7 the (%use %9 %r&s in the Fire Brigades Union case. 'he thir& appr%ach D%9 %r&s 2une&in an& 0umner" i#id%, 5=# an& 5#1C

=E is wi&er an& c%ul& Austi97 the appr%ach %9 the C%urt %9 .ppeal: their %r&ships lai& emphasis %n the 9act that where un&er the statute the Cr%wn has s%ught an& %btaine& a&&iti%nal statut%r7 p%wers t% &% the same thing %r s%mething wi&er than that permitte& b7 the prer%gati8e" it cann%t then ch%%se t% e@ercise the prer%gati8e instea&. Clearl7" alth%ugh De 6eyser7s c%ncerne& legislati%n which was in 9%rce" it re?uires %nl7 a min%r e@tensi%n %9 this thir& appr%ach t% appl7 it t% p%wers which the Cr%wn has %btaine& but ch%sen n%t t% bring int% e99ect" as with the 19BB .ct. !t was %n this basis that 3%rritt J in the C%urt %9 .ppeal hel& that the prer%gati8e was abri&ge& D[1995] 1 .ll )+ at 911E. 0ir 'h%mas 5ingham 3+" %n the %ther han&" regar&e& the De 6eyser7s &%ctrine as limite& t% substanti8e statut%r7 pr%8isi%ns which were in 9%rce. (%we8er" he reache& the same c%nclusi%n as 3%rritt J b7 reas%ning 9r%m 9irst principles: &ue respect t% legislati8e supremac7 re?uire& that the prer%gati8e sh%ul& be treate& as abri&ge& in the 9ace %9 an en&uring an& unrepeale& statement %9 *arliamentHs will D[1995] 1 .ll )+ at B9#E. 'his highlights the 9un&amental ?uesti%ns ab%ut the legitimac7 %9 alternati8e 9%rms %9 lawCmaking in a representati8e &em%crac7 which lie at the heart %9 the &ispute. !n the w%r&s %9 0ir 'h%mas 5ingham 3+" legislati%n is Hthe m%st s%lemn 9%rm 9%r which c%nstituti%n pr%8i&esH D[1995] 1 .ll )+ at B9#E. 'he br%a& principle that the g%8ernment sh%ul& n%t be 9ree t% %btain legislati%n 9r%m *arliament %n the un&erstan&ing that it will be use& an& then t% &eci&e unilaterall7 that it will n%t" is surel7 unimpeachable" e8en within the imp%8erishe& 5ritish 8ersi%ns %9 the rule %9 law an& the separati%n %9 p%wers Dc9. %r& 3ustill [1995] = W + at >BFCBE. .lth%ugh %9 9un&amental imp%rtance" the implicati%ns are in a sense pr%ce&ural: a re?uirement that a g%8ernment which changes its min& sh%ul& at least seek amen&ing legislati%n be9%re intr%&ucing changes. 1%rmall7" %9 c%urse" it will be re?uire& t% &% s% b7 the absence %9 legal auth%rit7 9%r its new p%siti%n. !t is 9airl7 c%mm%n" 9%r instance" a9ter a change in g%8ernment 9%r unimplemente& legislati%n at 8ariance with the new g%8ernmentHs p%licies t% be 9irst m%thCballe&" an& then repeale&. Where the p%wer in ?uesti%n is a prer%gati8e %ne this 9%rmalit7 ma7 be a8%i&e&. .lth%ugh it ma7 be a 9%rmalit7" it is an imp%rtant %ne" %n gr%un&s %9 the enhance& scrutin7" public &ebate an& legitimac7 which legislati%n enA%7s within a &em%crac7 when c%mpare& t% use %9 the prer%gati8e. 'hese are str%ng arguments 9%r c%&i97ing prer%gati8e p%wers where8er p%ssible. 'he7 are str%nger still when c%&i97ing legislati%n has in 9act been passe&. !n these circumstances t% res%rt t% the prer%gati8e rather than amen&ing legislati%n is str%ngl7 in&icati8e %9 e@ecuti8e ennui with the &em%cratic niceties. 'his anal7sis suggests that Au&ges wh% see their r%le as buttressing *arliamentar7 g%8ernment %ught" whene8er p%ssible" t% gi8e a restricte& rea&ing t% the prer%gati8e" an& s% 9%rce the e@ecuti8e t% use the better Di9 m%re circuit%usE r%ute 9%r implementing its p%licies. !n the great c%nstituti%nal battles %9 the se8enteenth centur7 the use %9 the prer%gati8e b7 the 0tuart m%narchs t% a8%i& inc%n8enient legislati%n was %ne %9 the abuses which culminate& in the &eclarati%n in the 5ill %9 +ights against the suspensi%n %9 statutes. 'he interCacti%n between prer%gati8e an& statute is less a matter %9 c%nstituti%nal crisis in current circumstances" n%t least because the prer%gati8e is e@ercise& b7 a g%8ernment minister resp%nsible t% a *arliament electe& thr%ugh uni8ersal 9ranchise. 1e8ertheless" the issues 9%r the rule %9 law are 9un&amentall7 the same. 'he principle %9 legalit7 &eman&s that statutes cann%t be set asi&e %n a &iscreti%nar7 basis b7 the Cr%wn. -enerall7 speaking" the m%&ern tren& is

t%war&s increasing re8iew %9 the prer%gati8e as the r%a& 9r%m !ain t% Bentley" 8ia !a9er" 5CH: an& ;verett sh%ws Drespecti8el7: R v Criminal Inj ries Compensation Board, ex parte !ain [19#F] = G.5. B#>< R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Bentley [199>] G5 3>9< !a9er 4ir=ays v Department of "rade [19FF] G5 #>3< Co ncil of Civil Service Unions v >inister for the Civil Service [19B>] .C 3F>< R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Common=ealth 4ffairs ex parte ;verett [19B9] G5 B11.. (%we8er" the Fire Brigades Union case is n%w the sec%n& misse& %pp%rtunit7 in recent 7ears t% limit the prer%gati8e b7 an e@pansi8e rea&ing %9 the De 6eyser7s rule. 'he 9irst was in the 8orth m#ria $olice case where the C%urt %9 .ppeal create& s%me c%n9usi%n in h%l&ing that the (%me 0ecretar7 p%ssesse& c%ncurrent p%wers t% issue C0 -as r%un&s t% the p%lice un&er the prer%gati8e %9 preser8ing the peace %9 the realm an& un&er the *%lice .ct 19#> C the statute was sai& n%t t% eclipse the prer%gati8e since it &i& n%t purp%rt t% create a m%n%p%l7 %9 p%wer D R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte 8orth m#ria $olice 4 thority [19BB] 1 .ll )+ 55#J criticise& in 5ra&le7" 19BBE. .n alternati8e" an& 9ar pre9erable" appr%ach w%ul& ha8e been a cauti%us rea&ing %9 the prer%gati8e where8er a statute ar%se in the same 9iel&" thus 9%rcing the e@ecuti8e t% claim 9r%m the legislature speci9ic auth%rit7 t% preser8e the prer%gati8e p%wer where necessar7. 0imilarl7" in the Fire Brigades Union case the appr%ach a&8%cate& b7 the maA%rit7 in the C%urt %9 .ppeal w%ul& n%t ha8e necessaril7 9rustrate& the e@ecuti8e. !nstea&" speci9ic legislati%n w%ul& ha8e been re?uire& t% repeal the 19BB pr%8isi%ns an&" at the 8er7 least" resuscitate the prer%gati8e %r" better" t% place the new scheme %n a statut%r7 basis Da c%urse %9 acti%n which the g%8ernment were c%ntemplating in the l%nger term in an7 e8entE. 1%ne %9 this is bur&ens%me t% the business %9 g%8ernment. 3%re generall7" a ruling al%ng these lines w%ul& ha8e shi9te& the %nus s% that an e@press preser8ati%n %9 the prer%gati8e pen&ing c%mmencement %9 the statut%r7 pr%8isi%n w%ul& nee& t% be inclu&e& in statutes" where that was the intenti%n. *arliament alrea&7 speaks in this wa7 where it wishes t% retain the prer%gati8e in the 9ace %9 new Dimplemente&E legislati%n %ccup7ing the same 9iel& Dsee" 9%r instance" the !mmigrati%n .ct 19F1" s 33E" thus %8erCri&ing the e99ect %9 the De 6eyser7s &%ctrine. 'he situati%n w%ul& then ha8e been similar t% that which applies %n the repeal %9 a statute: un&er the !nterpretati%n .ct 19FB s 1#D1E" the c%mm%n law Dpresumabl7 inclu&ing the prer%gati8eE &%es n%t re8i8e %n the repeal %9 legislati%n" unless e@pressl7 state&. 'his pr%8isi%n appears t% ha8e been %8erl%%ke& b7 writers wh%" 9%ll%wing the %l&er Au&gments" ha8e argue& that the prer%gati8e is temp%raril7 superse&e& &uring the li9e %9 a statute t% re8i8e" like 0leeping 5eaut7" %n its repeal. 'he !nterpretati%n .ct suggests that the interCrelati%nship betweeen these tw% s%urces %9 law is n%t re&ucible t% a simple asserti%n that the prer%gati8e is %nl7 suspen&e& b7 a statute in force. (%we8er" i9 the .ct can be taken as a br%a& statement %9 *arliamentHs will %n the repeal %9 inc%nsistent legislati%n" it is" a&mitte&l7" silent %n the e99ect %n the prer%gati8e between +%7al .ssent an& c%mmencement.

4.! 6+) ', !3* )3)1' )-!0 .'!,1

6nlike the c%urts" *arliament is n%t spare& m%%t lawCmaking. .m%ng the range %9 c%mmencement 9%rmulae c%mm%nl7 empl%7e& b7 th%se wh% &ra9t legislati%n" are

se8eral which can result in pr%tracte& &ela7 in implementing legislati%n. 4r%m *arliamentHs p%int %9 8iew the m%st certain are c%mmencement %n the +%7al .ssent Dwhich" in the absence %9 an7 in&icati%n t% the c%ntrar7" is the rule un&er un&er the !nterpretati%n .ct 19FB" s >E %r speci97ing an app%inte& &a7 in the .ct. 3%re c%mm%n is a pr%8isi%n al%ng the lines %9 the Criminal Justice .ct 19BB s 1F1D1E pr%8i&ing that the secti%ns c%me int% 9%rce H %n such &a7 as the 0ecretar7 %9 0tate ma7 ... app%intH. 'his all%ws 9%r 9le@ibilit7" gi8ing time 9%r necessar7 a&ministrati8e changes an& 9%r the law t% be intr%&uce& acc%r&ing t% p%litical e@pe&ienc7. (%we8er" h%w 9ar &%es the &iscreti%n e@ten&K !s it c%rrect t% argue Das &i& c%unsel 9%r the uni%nsE that while the minister has &iscreti%n %8er =hen the c%mmencement %r&er is lai&" there is n%ne as t% =hether it will beK ,r are the uncertainties %9 p%litical li9e s% &eep that w%r&s like th%se in s 1F1D1E c%n9er a &iscreti%n wi&e en%ugh t% inclu&e the p%ssibilit7 %9 n%nCimplementati%nK 5enni%n has argue& that whether the 9%rmula in the c%mmencement secti%n is man&at%r7 %r permissi8e" the presumpti%n in each case sh%ul& be that *arliamentHs intenti%n is that the wh%le .ct sh%ul& be br%ught int% 9%rce" an& that 9ailure t% &% s% sh%ul& be amenable t% Au&icial re8iew D5enni%n 199=" 1B5C#E. . 8ariet7 %9 &i99erent interpretati%ns %9 the e99ect %9 the w%r&ing use& in the c%mmencement secti%n appear in the Au&gments. 'aking the C%urt %9 .ppeal an& (%use %9 %r&sH Au&gments t%gether" a maA%rit7 %9 Au&ges state& clearl7 that the secti%n imp%se& n% en9%rceable &ut7 t% implement the legislati%n. ,nl7 tw% Au&ges &eparte& 9r%m this appr%ach: %r& Ieith argue& that i9 there was a &ut7 it was n%t %we& t% the public but t% *arliament D[1995] = W + at >##E" an& 0ir 'h%mas 5ingham 3+" argue& that there was a &ut7 but it was 9le@ible en%ugh t% all%w 9%r &ela7ing implementati%n %9 the statut%r7 scheme %n 9inancial gr%un&s D[1995] 1 .ll )+ at B95E. (%we8er" all the aw %r&s" 9%un& in s 1F1 a &i99erent t7pe %9 &ut7" which the maA%rit7 9%un& that the 0ecretar7 %9 0tate ha& breache& C a &ut7 t% keep implementati%n %9 the .ct un&er c%nsi&erati%n. 4%r %r&s 5r%wneCWilkins%n D[1995] = W + at >F3 ff%E" l%7& Di#id." >9=E" an& 1ich%lls Di#id." >95C#E" the (%me 0ecreatr7 ha& acte& unlaw9ull7 in ren%uncing the p%wer t% implement the statut%r7 scheme in a&8ance %9 its repeal. 'he &issenting %r&s saw the situati%n &i99erentl7: %r& 3ustill &i& n%t see the ann%uncement as a permanent aban&%nment %9 the p%wer Di#id." >B#. an& %r& Ieith argue&" %nce again" that the &ut7 t% c%nsi&er was n%t legall7 en9%rceable" but was %we& t% *arliament Di#id%" >#BE. 'he ke7 ?uesti%ns t% be c%nsi&ere& are the reas%ns 9%r the reluctance t% 9in& a clear &ut7 t% implement the legislati%n in s 1F1" an& whether a &ut7 t% keep the matter un&er re8iew am%unts t% a c%herent alternati8e appr%ach. Just as" 9%ll%wing the 5CH: case" n%t all prer%gati8e p%wers are e?uall7 re8iewable" s% it can be argue& that statut%r7 p%wers sh%ul& be appr%ache& &i99erentl7 acc%r&ing t% the subAect matter. 'he e@ercise %9 s%me is m%re p%liticall7 sensiti8e than %thers an&" alth%ugh the c%urts sel&%m e@plicitl7 state it" this 9act%r surel7 9eatures in man7 Au&icial re8iew &ecisi%ns. -%8ernmental 9inancial &ecisi%ns are am%ng the m%st sensiti8e: a 9act%r which clearl7 un&erlies" 9%r e@ample" the p%%r success rate %9 l%cal auth%rities in challenging central grant all%cati%n an& capping p%wers. 'he reas%n 9%r Au&icial reluctance t% inter8ene is %b8i%us: g%8ernmental &ecisi%ns re9lecting 9inancial pri%rities cann%t be un&%ne piecemealJ there9%re" a Au&icial &eterminati%n that %ne spen&ing Dc%mm%nl7" c%stCcuttingE &ecisi%n is unlaw9ul will %9ten ha8e wi&esprea& implicati%ns in upsetting a &elicate balance %9 %ther c%mpr%mise &ecisi%ns" which are

be7%n& the sc%pe %9 the litigati%n Dsee" 9%r e@ample" the recent &ecisi%n %9 the C%urt %9 .ppeal in R v Cam#ridge Health 4 thority ex parte B [1995] 1 W + B9BE. !n an%ther acti%n 9%r Au&icial re8iew br%ught t% challenge the new criminal inAuries c%mpensati%n scheme" 1eill J re9erre& e@plicitl7 in this c%nte@t t% the aca&emic literature %n p%l7centric &ecisi%ns in supp%rt %9 n%nCinter8enti%n: R v CICB and another, ex parte $ and another [1995] 1 .ll )+ BF$" at B5F. 'his was als% a signi9icant 9act%r in the Fire Brigades Union case" with se8eral Au&ges rec%gnising the nee& 9%r g%8ernment 9le@ibilit7 %8er the implementati%n %9 legislati%n in the light %9 changing ec%n%mic circumstances D(%bh%use J [1995] 1 .ll )+ at 9$1" 0ir 'h%mas 5ingham 3+" i#id% B9>C5J %r& Ieith [1995] = W + at >#FJ %r& 3ustill" i#id." >B=C3J %r& 1ich%lls" i#id%, >9>C5$E. !n the same wa7" it can be argue& that &ecisi%ns ab%ut the implementati%n %9 legislati%n are peculiarl7 sensiti8e. 1%t all statut%r7 enabling p%wers are e?ual. 'he p%wer t% la7 a c%mmencement %r&er is n%t merel7 %n a par with statut%r7 p%wers t% issue licences an& ser8e statut%r7 n%tices. .lth%ugh the s%urce %9 the p%wer ma7 be in&istinguishable 9r%m that auth%rising an7 %ther kin& %9 statut%r7 instrument" in practice the issue is %9 a &i99erent p%litical %r&er. 0e8eral Au&ges sp%ke e@plicitl7 %9 the nee& n%t t% trespass up%n %n s% sensiti8e an area %9 *arliamentar7 c%mpetence. *arliamentar7 sancti%n was the appr%ach pre9erre& b7 %r& Ieith" wh% argue& that the &ecisi%n %8er the implementati%n %9 the statut%r7 scheme was H%9 a p%litical an& a&ministrati8e character ?uite unsuitable t% be the subAect %9 Au&icial re8iew b7 a c%urt %9 lawH which w%ul& be Ha m%st impr%per intrusi%n int% a 9iel& which lies peculiarl7 within the pr%8ince %9 *arliamentH D[1995] = W + at >##CFE. %r& 3ustill" in8%ke& the separati%n %9 p%wers t% the same e99ect +i#id%, >BBE: L. ...*arliament has its %wn special means %9 ensuring that the e@ecuti8e in the e@ercise %9 its &elegate& 9uncti%ns" per9%rms in a wa7 which *arliament 9in&s appr%priate. !&eall7" it is these latter meth%&s which sh%ul& be use& t% check e@ecuti8e err%rs an& e@cessesJ 9%r it is the task %9 *arliament an& the e@ecuti8e in tan&em" n%t the c%urts" t% g%8ern the c%untr7. !n recent 7ears" h%we8er" the empl%7ment in practice %9 these speci9icall7 *arliamentar7 reme&ies has %n %ccasi%n been percei8e& as 9alling sh%rt" an& s%metimes well sh%rt" %9 what was nee&e& t% bring the per9%rmance %9 the e@ecuti8e int% line with the law" an& with the minimum stan&ar&s %9 9airness implicit in e8er7 *arliamentar7 &elegati%n %9 a &ecisi%nCmaking 9uncti%n. '% a8%i& a 8acuum in which the citiMen w%ul& be le9t with%ut pr%tecti%n against a misuse %9 e@ecuti8e p%wers the c%urts ha8e ha& n% %pti%n but t% %ccup7 the &ea& gr%un& in a manner which" an& in areas %9 public li9e" which c%ul& n%t ha8e been 9%reseen 3$ 7ears ag%. 4%r m7sel9" ! am ?uite satis9ie& that this unprece&ente& Au&icial r%le has been greatl7 t% the public bene9it. 1e8ertheless" it has risks" %9 which the c%urts are well aware. ....s%me %9 the arguments a&&resse& w%ul& ha8e the c%urt push t% the 8er7 b%un&aries %9 the &istincti%n between c%urt an& *arliament establishe& in" an& rec%gnise& e8er since" the 5ill %9 +ights 1#B9....L 'hese arguments mirr%r th%se empl%7e& b7 the (%use in the past: 9%r instance" as a reas%n 9%r n%nCinter8enti%n in relati%n t% allege& 9rau& in the pr%m%ti%n %9 pri8ate legislati%n D$ic9in v BRB [19F>] .C F#5E" an& b7 %r& 0carman in relati%n t% the parliamentar7 a99irmati8e res%luti%n pr%ce&ure 9%r appr%8ing &elegate& legislati%n

D8ottinghamsire Co nty Co ncil v Sectretary of State for the ;nvironment [19B#] = W + 1" 5CF Dcriticise& in (imsw%rth 19B#EE. 'he %nl7 sa9e c%nstituti%nal gr%un& %n which a 6I c%urt ma7 appr%ach a ?uesti%n %9 this sensiti8it7 is b7 wa7 %9 an attempt t% 9in& *arliamentHs intenti%n" with the %bAect %9 uph%l&ing *arliamentar7 s%8ereignt7. 3an7 cases appear in the law rep%rts in the sha&%w %9 unimplemente& legislati%n with%ut that being a reas%n 9%r the Au&iciar7 t% anticipate the e99ect %9 the new law: in&ee& in a certain sense t% bring law int% e99ect be9%re *arliament has sancti%ne& c%ul& be sai& t% be a &enial %9 parliamentar7 s%8ereignt7 Dsee 5ri&ge 19F=" 9%r an argument against acc%r&ing anticipat%r7 e99ect t% legislati%nE. (%we8er" e?uall7" curtailment %9 the ministerHs &iscreti%n can be seen n%t t% be a limitati%n %n the legislati8e p%wer as such. !n&ee& it can be interprete& as the re8erse C pr%tecting parliamentar7 s%8ereignt7 9r%m e@ecuti8e abuse %r neglect. Certainl7" there ha& been se8eral %pp%rtunities t% repeal %r amen& the 19BB pr%8isi%ns in Criminal Justice 5ills in the inter8ening 7ears" which ha& n%t been taken" but" %n the %ther han&" an amen&ment t% re?uire the minister t% bring the scheme in t% e99ect ha& been &e9eate& in 199>. What is surprising is that in this instance the (%use %9 %r&s ma&e n% use %9 their newC9%un& abilit7 t% ha8e rec%urse t% parliamentar7 &ebates un&er $epper v Hart [1993] 1 .ll )+ >=, t% establish whether there was an7 in&icati%n in (ansar& ab%ut the intenti%n t% bring the c%mpensati%n scheme int% 9%rce. C%nstituti%nal abh%rrence at the th%ught %9 issuing an %r&er %9 man&amus t% la7 a c%mmencement %r&er clearl7 weighe& hea8il7 with %r& 3ustill D?,--(@ / A!R at )B2E: L4%r the c%urts t% grant relie9 %9 this kin& w%ul& in8%l8e a penetrati%n int% *arliamentHs e@clusi8e 9iel& %9 legislati8e acti8it7 9ar greater than an7 that has been c%ntemplate& e8en &uring the rapi& e@pansi%n %9 Au&icial inter8enti%n &uring the last =$ 7ears.L %r&s Ieith Di#id%, >##." 5r%wneCWilkins%n Di#id%, >F=." an& 1ich%lls Di#id%, >95E t%%k the same appr%ach. 'his c%ntrasts with the creati8it7 with which new reme&ies ha8e been 9ashi%ne& where necessar7 t% gi8e e99ect t% )C law: 9%r e@ample" the in8enti%n %9 an %r&er H&isappl7ingH a statute in R v Secretary of State for "ransport, ex parte Factortame !td% +8o%/. [199$] 3 W + B1B. ,ne p%ssibilit7 here w%ul& ha8e been t% issue man&amus but all%w a &ela7 t% enable the g%8ernment t% %btain legislati8e repeal %r re9%rm %9 the pr%8isi%ns i9 it s% wishe&" an& was able t% %btain the necessar7 *arliamentar7 maA%rit7. !9 it was unable t% &% s%" this w%ul& suggest that the c%urts were" a9ter all" 9%ll%wing *arliamentHs will. 3%re%8er" i9 the pr%spect %9 such an %r&er is s% &rea&9ul" *arliament c%ul& in 9uture gi8e Au&geCpr%%9 c%mmencement %r&er enabling pr%8isi%ns. '% put the %nus that wa7 ar%un& w%ul&" it is submitte&" strengthen *arliamentar7 s%8ereignt7 b7 enc%uraging real &ebate an& c%nsi&erati%n %9 the p%wers grante& t% the e@ecuti8e %8er the c%mmencement %9 legislati%n. 'he appr%ach %9 the maA%rit7 in the (%use %9 %r&s can als% be criticise& 9%r the unrealit7 %9 the &istincti%n between ministerial repu&iati%n %9 statut%r7 p%wers an& in%r&inate &ela7 in their use. 57 wa7 %9 an Da&mitte&l7 e@tremeE e@ample" c%nsi&er

the )aster .ct 19=B s =D=E" which pr%8i&es 9%r c%mmencement b7 %r&erJ n% %r&er has been ma&e" s%me #F 7ears a9ter the .ct reache& the statute b%%k. )8en all%wing 9%r a cauti%us re8iew %9 all the a8ailable %pti%ns in the light %9 changing circumstances" it seems unlikel7 that c%mmencement %9 the )aster .ct is a matter un&er acti8e re8iew in Whitehall. .lth%ugh n% 9%rmal ann%uncement ma7 ha8e been ma&e %9 its aban&%nment" the p%wer lies unuse& an& l%ngC9%rg%tten" behin& a 9ile %n the t%p shel9 %9 a &ust7 %99ice at the en& %9 a l%ng c%rri&%r %n the ninth 9l%%r" %9 the Calen&ar D*%lic7E 0ecti%n %9 the 3inistr7 %9 'ime. !9 the c%urts seri%usl7 9%ll%w the i&ea that ministerial &iscreti%n t% la7 a c%mmencement %r&er cann%t be 9ettere& %r aban&%ne&" the7 will ine8itabl7 be &rawn int% c%nsi&ering what c%nstitutes a reas%nable &ela7 in implementing legislati%n. !t remains t% be seen whether the e@ecuti8e resp%nse will be m%re ingeni%usl7 &ra9te& c%mmencement pr%8isi%ns in an attempt t% 9%recl%se p%ssible challenge.

C,1C 60!,1
!n summar7: it is b7 n% means clear that t% strike &%wn the (%me 0ecretar7Hs acti%n %n gr%un&s that he ha& repu&iate& a statut%r7 p%wer was either m%re c%herent %r less %9 an inter9erence with the legislati8e pr%cess than an %r&er re?uiring the .ct t% be br%ught int% e99ect a9ter an appr%priate peri%&. 6ltimatel7" the reas%ning in the maA%rit7 speeches in the %r&s turns %n a 8er7 narr%w p%int C a slipsh%& pr%n%uncement in a White *aper. !9 instea& the (%me 0ecretar7 ha& sai& that new scheme was interim D9%r a speci9ie& %r unspeci9ie& peri%&E then his acti%n w%ul& ha8e been hel& t% be law9ulJ in&ee& this was the appr%ach %9 %r& 3ustill" &issenting" [1995] = W + at >B#" wh% argue& that the ann%uncement came t% much the same thing b7 implicati%n. (%we8er" we ma7 be sure that n% *ermanent 0ecretar7 will e8er all%w t% be repeate& such an unguar&e& c%nstituti%nal fa x pas as that ma&e in the name %9 3r. (%war&. !9 it is limite& t% ministerial statements ma&e %n plans 9%r legislati%n" the Fire Brigades Union &ecisi%n is" there9%re" likel7 t% be uni?ue. 3%re%8er" i9 the s%le %utc%me is m%re guar&e& ministerial language" the &ecisi%n will ha8e &%ne n%thing t% enhance *arliamentar7 scrutin7 %9 e@ecuti8e acti%n %r %9 legislati%n. 'he maA%rit7 %9 the (%use %9 %r&s w%ul& ha8e &%ne better t% 9%ll%w the b%l& lea& %9 the C%urt %9 .ppeal t% h%l& that the rule in De 6eyser7s c%ul& be e@ten&e& t% pre8ent the e@ercise %9 the prer%gati8e in the 9ace %9 inc%nsistent" unrepeale&" legislati%n" whether in 9%rce %r n%t. Bibliography 5enni%n" 4 D199=E 0tatut%r7 !nterpretati%n" D=n& e&." %n&%n" 5utterw%rthsE. 5ra&le7" . W 5 D19BBE" L*%lice *%wers an& the *rer%gati8eL" [19BB] *ublic aw =9B. 5ri&ge" J W D19F=E LJu&icial .nticipati%n %9 the C%mmencement %9 0tatutesL" BB G+ 39$. (arl%w" C an& +awlings" + D19B>E an& 1ich%ls%nE. aw an& .&ministrati%n D %n&%n" Wei&en9iel&

(imsw%rth" C 3 - D19B#E L*arliamentar7 .ppr%8al an& 6nreas%nablenessL" [19B#] *ublic aw 3F>. 3arkensis" 5 0 D19F3E" L'he +%7al *rer%gati8e +eC/isite&L" D19F3E Camb. J =BF. 3unr%" C D19BFE 0tu&ies in C%nstituti%nal aw" D %n&%n" 5utterw%rthsE. Wa&e" 0ir William D19B9E C%nstituti%nal 4un&amentals" D %n&%n" 0te8ensE. Walker" C D19BFE L+e8iew %9 the *rer%gati8e: the remaining issuesL" [19BF] *ublic aw #=.