CCSU v Minister for Civil Service 1985 (HOL)
- GCHQ: branch of public service (public function)
- 1984 GCHQ staff not permitted to belong to national trade unions
Whether the oral instruction (exercise of royal prerogative) by PM is valid? A: Invalid - PM did not consult staffs prior to exercise of power, so this was a failure in procedural obligation.
Whether Courts have power to review instruction on the ground of procedural irregularity: (a) power exercised was royal prerogative (not statute)
(b) involves national security (GCHQ) --> EP Act '78 no right of appeal by staff if national security grounds concerned.
History of Appeal
(LC): R appealed because LC granted declaration; procedural irregularity, decision is to be remade. (CA): reverse of LC's decision - accepted R's appeal, rejected A's application for JR.
- Does art 4 Order give Minister the royal prerogative to issue instruction? - Order issued by sovereign (and her prerogative) and not by Act of P
- within the sphere of prerogative, Crown has absolute discretion [Dicey] "the remaining portion of Crown's original authority…the residual of discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of Crown [or his ministers]"
R's submission (1)
the way direct prerogative powers are exercised is not open to review by the Courts. - Courts should identify the existence of prerogative
Yes? Identify the extent of the power.
No further inquiry into the propriety of its exercise
---> J believed it was unnecessary to decide this questions; assumes it's correct So all powers exercised directly under prerogative are immune from challenge in Courts
R's submission (2)
non-direct exercise of prerogative (delegated power in Order but was made under prerogative) enjoys immunity from review, same as direct exercise of prerogative?
Please join StudyMode to read the full document