Essay question:
'The royal prerogative is an anachronism inconsistent with parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.' Discuss.
---
Model answer
The proposition invites a normative assessment of the prerogative's compatibility with foundational constitutional principles. A strong answer will define the prerogative precisely, trace its historical evolution, analyse its interaction with parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, and engage with the post-GCHQ case law and academic literature. The conclusion should be evaluative, not merely descriptive.
Introduction
The royal prerogative comprises the residual common-law powers vested in the Crown. It is often described as anachronistic: a feudal relic in a democratic age, conferring broad discretionary authority on ministers without parliamentary authorisation. The proposition asserts that this is incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty (the principle that Parliament is the supreme law-maker) and the rule of law (the principle that governmental power must be subject to law). This essay argues that while the prerogative does pose challenges to these principles, recent judicial and legislative developments have brought it substantially within the constitutional order. The prerogative is not inherently inconsistent with sovereignty or the rule of law, but it requires vigilant constraint and transparency to remain legitimate.
Defining the prerogative
Blackstone defined the prerogative as the powers and immunities belonging to the Crown alone. Dicey described it as the residue of discretionary authority lawfully possessed by the executive. Importantly, the prerogative is part of the common law: the courts recognise and delimit its scope (BBC v Johns; Northumbria Police). It is not statutory, and the executive may not expand it unilaterally. This gives the courts a gatekeeping role but leaves significant discretion in ministerial hands.
The prerogative and parliamentary sovereignty
On one view, the prerogative violates parliamentary sovereignty because it permits executive action without legislative authority. Tomkins argues that in a democracy all governmental power should derive from statute, subject to parliamentary debate and amendment. The prerogative, by contrast, allows ministers to act—making treaties, deploying troops, granting pardons—without consulting Parliament.
Yet the relationship is more nuanced. Dicey himself saw no contradiction: parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament may regulate any area of law, including the prerogative, and where it does, statute prevails. De Keyser's Royal Hotel established that statute displaces prerogative. Fire Brigades Union held that prerogative may not be used to frustrate the purpose of a statute. Miller I confirmed that prerogative cannot be invoked to remove rights conferred by Parliament. Far from undermining sovereignty, these principles subordinate the prerogative to statute. The executive acts within law, not above it.
Moreover, parliamentary sovereignty includes the freedom not to legislate. If Parliament chooses to leave certain matters—honours, mercy, aspects of foreign affairs—to executive discretion, that is an exercise of sovereign choice. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 brought the civil service and treaty ratification partially onto a statutory footing; the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 restored the dissolution prerogative but on a statutory basis. Parliament has regulated the prerogative where it judges regulation necessary and has deliberately refrained from doing so elsewhere. This is sovereignty in action, not its negation.
The prerogative and the rule of law
The rule of law, in Dicey's account, requires that governmental power be exercised under law, subject to judicial supervision, and that all persons—including officials—be equally subject to ordinary law. The prerogative appears to fail these tests. It is discretionary, often secret, and until recently was treated as non-justiciable.
The modern development of judicial review has transformed this picture. GCHQ established that prerogative exercises are reviewable on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Lord Diplock stated that the controlling factor is not the source of the power but its subject-matter. Subsequent cases have applied this principle vigorously. Miller II held that even the most 'high' prerogative—advice to the monarch on prorogation—is subject to legal limits and judicial determination. The courts have rejected the notion of 'forbidden areas' immune from review, distinguishing instead between justiciability of legal limits (always reviewable) and justiciability of discretionary judgment (sometimes unsuitable).
Furthermore, the Human Rights Act 1998 requires all public authorities, including ministers exercising prerogative, to act compatibly with Convention rights. This embeds the prerogative within a framework of legal accountability. Decisions on detention, deportation, and security that once lay beyond review are now routinely challenged under the HRA.
Nonetheless, residual concerns remain. Certain prerogatives—treaty-making, deployment of armed forces—are weakly supervised. The 2003 Iraq War was authorised by prerogative, and although a convention of prior parliamentary approval has since emerged, it is political, not legal. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 includes a statutory provision seeking to insulate the dissolution power from judicial review (s 3), a move criticised as undermining the rule of law. These examples show that while progress has been made, the prerogative retains zones of discretion resistant to full legal control.
Academic perspectives
Loughlin defends the prerogative as a necessary feature of executive capacity: flexibility to respond to crises, conduct diplomacy, and govern effectively where statute is silent or too slow. He warns that over-legalisation risks paralysis or the displacement of prerogative with equally discretionary statutory powers (delegated legislation, Henry VIII clauses), achieving no net gain in accountability.
Allan and Craig take the contrary view: the rule of law and democracy demand that all power be grounded in law, transparent, and reviewable. The prerogative is a constitutional anomaly tolerated only because reform is politically difficult. They advocate codification and statutory replacement, as recommended by the Public Administration Select Committee.
Elliott offers a middle path: incremental reform, subjecting the most significant prerogatives (war, treaties) to statute while retaining residual flexibility for minor or ceremonial matters. This pragmatic approach has animated recent legislation (CRAG, the 2022 Act) but leaves much unfinished.
Conclusion
The prerogative is undoubtedly archaic in origin, but it is not inconsistent in principle with parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. Sovereignty is preserved by the principle that statute always prevails and that Parliament may at any time regulate or abolish any prerogative. The rule of law is increasingly served by justiciability: the courts define the limits of prerogative, enforce legality, and protect rights. The transformation since GCHQ represents one of the most significant advances in UK public law.
That said, the prerogative remains constitutionally problematic. Its discretionary character, partial opacity, and the lingering reluctance to subject certain exercises to legal or parliamentary control sit uneasily with modern democratic expectations. The better view is that the prerogative is not inherently illegitimate but requires ongoing constraint. Statutory codification of major powers, parliamentary approval mechanisms for significant decisions, and continued judicial vigilance are all necessary to ensure the prerogative operates compatibly with constitutional principle. The issue is not whether the prerogative can be reconciled with sovereignty and the rule of law—it can, and increasingly is—but whether we are doing enough to achieve that reconciliation.
Word count: c. 1,180
---
Tutorial follow-up notes
- Consider explicitly the concept of 'constitutional propriety' from Fire Brigades Union: even lawful powers must be exercised compatibly with constitutional fundamentals.
- Engage with the political constitution / legal constitution debate (Griffith v Laws LJ): does reliance on convention and political accountability suffice, or must constraint be legal?
- Discuss the significance of the Miller II distinction between justiciability of limits (legal question) and justiciability of merits (may be political).
- Comparative examples (US, Germany) can sharpen analysis: is codification superior to common-law evolution?
This answer demonstrates doctrinal command, critical engagement with case law, and the ability to synthesise academic debate. It avoids mere description and reaches an argued, defensible conclusion.