Dicey always prevail over prerogative powers. In R

Dicey defined The Royal Prerogative
as “the residue of the discretionary or arbitrary power legally left in the
hands of the crown.” This means that powers which belong to the crown alone
could only be considered prerogative powers. 
It is a set of powers that allows the Prime Minister and the Government
the authority and means to make important decisions without referring to
parliament. These powers were previously in the hands of the Queen however in
practice are used by the ministers and cabinet. Historically the prerogative
was used to create treaties and deploy armed forces. Powers also cover the appointment
and removal of ministers and civil service officers. With the Prerogative, the
Prime Minister can dissolve a parliament, declare war and call for
elections.  Historically when the death
penalty existed the royal prerogative of mercy allowed ministers to pardon the
sentenced however now it only allows for the changing of sentences.

 

In the Case of Proclamations (1610)
Lord Coke states that the king does not have the power to introduce new
offences or change common law however can only exercise the prerogative powers
which are given by the courts. Hence the courts have the power to state if that
prerogative power exists and how much of the power is used by the monarch,
showing that the basic rule of the prerogative power is in the hands of the
courts.  Prerogative powers have changed
through legislation. Some of them have now been substituted by statuary
powers.  According to A-G v De Keysers
Royal Hotel Ltd (1920) when both statuary and prerogative powers coincide the
crown is unable to exercise the prerogative power. It was held that no less
money could be paid under prerogative powers as statute would always prevail
over prerogative powers.  In R v
Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union (1995),
the home secretary refused to choose a time to implement part of the Criminal
Justice Act 1988. The Home Secretary implemented a substitute scheme under
prerogative powers. This conveyed that the Home Secretary had acted in an
unlawful manner due to that he was not allowed to refuse to implement
legislation completely. Each of the executive, legislature and judiciary have
their own domain ensuring separation. Hence if there is a statuary scheme, the
prerogative cannot choose to replace it. 
Courts do not have the power to regulate how the prerogative is
exercised nonetheless the extent of the powers are in the hands of the Courts
as stated by Lord Coke. In the Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for
the Civil Service 1985, there is a recognition that judicial review could
apply on the exercise of the prerogative powers.  Although prerogative powers can be subject to
judicial review there are some exceptions such as if the power is used to
protect national security as in this case. 
Moreover, a decision which defies logic or moral standards can be
repressed.  The prerogative power of
issuing passports is reviewable by the courts. R v Secretary for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs Ex p Everett (1985) supported the GCHQ case and showed that
the executive prerogative power is subject to judicial review.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Historically formal declarations of
war were the standard however now they are considered unfashionable, this power
includes deployment of armed forces to an overseas encounter.  It is a prerogative power hence the choice
lies in the hands of the crown rather than the monarch.  There’s an emerging constitutional convention
on parliamentary involvement in these decisions.  There were no votes whatsoever to obtain the
sanction of the parliament, for example in the first Gulf War 1991 or the
Falklands War 1982. The change came when the United Kingdom decided to join the
invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was incredibly controversial to the extent that it
was a political necessity rather than a constitutional or legal requirement to
seek the sanction of the House of Commons. 
The House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration called
for Parliamentary approval for war decisions to be a constitutional
requirement. In 2007 the government suggested that it would support a House of
Commons resolution that government must consult parliament before declaring
war.  Acts may have retrospective effect,
for example, the War Damages act 1965 which reversed the House of Lords
decisions in Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate (1965). This issue was on the verge of
being resolved in favour of statuary regulation through the Constitutional
Reform and Governance Bill 2010; this included a draft provision on previous
approval by resolution of each house. 
Due to the final version of the act not containing this proposal the
exercise of this power is still in the hands of the government. In 2015 the
United Kingdom decided not to progress with the airstrikes against ISIS in
Syria due to government feeling it would not win the majority of the House of
Commons points to the strength of the emerging constitutional convention.

 

There are several problems with the
prerogative; the powers usually need precision. However, the biggest problem is
that the use of prerogative powers bypasses Parliament. By taking advantage of
prerogative powers, governments will not rely on parliament to seek statuary
powers. Prerogative actions should be subject to higher control by
parliament.  There are numerous options
for reform, to replace the prerogative power with a legal rule such as the
Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011.  To
retain the prerogative power, however, formalise by law or a constitutional
convention. For example, the emerging convention on the use of the war
prerogative. To retain the prerogative power but formalise the legal
requirements for Parliamentary consent. For example, the Constitutional Reform
and Governance Act 2010 on international treaties.

In conclusion, prerogatives are the
residue of special legal powers that the crown possesses over and above all
other persons. The prerogatives can be controlled and displaced by statute, and
the courts can rule on the existence and scope of prerogative powers and
judicially review their exercise.