Zairian Case Study

Satisfactory Essays

Parliament makes the law, the executive carries the law into effect and the judiciary enforce the law. The expression “the crown” has two meanings, being monarchy and executive. Only in the 17th century did the parliament establish supremacy over the Crown as monarch. It was established that the judges cannot enforce the law against the Crown as monarch because the Crown as monarch can do no wrong but judges can enforce the law against the Crown as executive by way of injunction against a minister in his official capacity. The courts are armed with coercive power exercisable in proceedings for contempt of court which was upheld in the case of M v Home Office too.


A Zairian(M) sought asylum, but his application and an application for judicial review were rejected and he was notified that he was to return back to Zaire. Later he was issued a new proceeding for judicial review whereby the judge said that the removal should be delayed. The judge then accepted an undertaking from the Crown’s council that he would not be removed but, the Home Office still went ahead and removed M. M was deported in an alleged
…show more content…
This was the first time in history, wherein a minister was held in contempt of court and the decision was made to uphold supremacy of law and not supremacy of an executive who as per the law was not protected by the immunity levied to the Crown which being the Crown can do no wrong as per Crown Proceedings Act 1947. This judgement laid a foundation for the future years by bringing a drastic change in the way the crown could be sued in a court of law. The Act of Crown Proceedings 1947 ensured civil actions could be brought against the executive for he was not above the law and was to work only within the ambit of the
Get Access