Analysis of the Case Law

2234 Words9 Pages
Analysis of the Case Law "There is no prescribed constitutional relationship between the courts and the executive, but the judges assert their inherent power, derived from the rule of law, to review executive actions" The question starts off by giving us an element of the separation of powers when it says that there is no prescribed constitutional relationship between the courts and the executives. The concept of separation of powers propounded by Montesquieu, the French political philosopher, has three main criteria: (i) There are three main classes of governmental functions: the legislature, the executive and the judicial. (ii) There are (or should be) three main organs of government in a state: the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. (iii) To concentrate more than one class of function in any one person or organ of government is a threat to individual liberty. For example, the Executives should not be allowed to make laws or adjudicate on alleged breaches of the law; it should be confined to the executive functions of making and applying policy and general administration. The third proposition, which is said to be the most extreme and doctrinaire, is what the question in hand seems to overrule using the rule of law, whereby judges are said to use it to assert their inherent power to review executive actions. Dicey[1] saw the rule of law as a central feature of the British constitution. He had his own idiosyncratic ideas of what the rule of law implied and his ideas were very influential for two generations. The concept is o... ... middle of paper ... ...Edition) --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] A.V Dicey, "Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution" (10th Edition , 1959) [2] H.A Street, "Ultra Vires", 1 - 3 [3] Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway (1880) 5 App. Cas. 473, 478 [4] Howard v Boddington (1877) 2 P.D 203, 211 [5] (1964) A.C 40 [6] Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry Industry Trading Board v Kent(1970) 2 Q.B 19 [7] R v Post-master General exp Carmichael(1938) 1 K.B 651 [8] R v Boycott exp Keasley (1934) 2 K.B 651 [9] Hill v Ladyshore Coal Co. (1936) All E R 299 [10] (1998) 114, LQR [11] R v Secretary of State exp Doody (1994) 1 A.C 531 [12] R v Secretary of State for Social Security exp Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (1997) 1 W.L R 275
Open Document