“The Crown cannot create crimes or change law by proclamation without parliamentary consent.”
King James I issued a proclamation attempting to regulate trade and create new offences. The case arose when the validity and scope of royal proclamations were challenged in the courts.
Whether the Crown had power to create new crimes and alter the common law through royal proclamation alone, without parliamentary involvement.
The court held that the Crown could not create new crimes or alter the law by proclamation. Royal proclamations could only be used within existing legal frameworks established by Parliament or common law.
This case represents a crucial early limitation on royal prerogative power and a step toward parliamentary sovereignty. It established the principle that fundamental legal changes require legislative, not just executive, authority.
You're reading the free summary of Prince's Case. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Prince's Case (1606) 8 Co Rep 1a
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.