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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll