Ccsu V Minister for Civil Service 1985
CCSU v Minister for Civil Service 1985 (HOL)
Facts
- GCHQ: branch of public service (public function)
- 1984 GCHQ staff not permitted to belong to national trade unions
Issues
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.
Royal Prerogative
- 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
Facts
- GCHQ: branch of public service (public function)
- 1984 GCHQ staff not permitted to belong to national trade unions
Issues
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.
Royal Prerogative
- 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