Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T02:35:37.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy, Liberty and the Prerogative: The Displacement of Inherent Executive Power by Statute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Benjamin B Saunders
Benjamin B Saunders*
Affiliation:
Office of Crown Counsel (Advisings), Department of Justice, Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses arguments that the prerogative should be readily displaced by statute, where a statute deals with a subject matter similar to a prerogative. It does so by examining the leading cases on displacement of the prerogative in the United Kingdom and the Australian states, and displacement of the Australian Commonwealth's inherent executive power. The cases do not adopt a single rule but the question of whether a statute will be taken to displace a prerogative is highly dependent on the facts and the provisions of the particular statute. This article defends the current approach to displacement, for three reasons. First, the courts do not allow governments to subvert or ignore statutes by using the prerogative. Secondly, the courts have almost always decided in favour of liberty and against the conferral of coercive powers on government. Thirdly, a single rule could not do justice to all the variables involved in displacement cases. Ordinary principles of statutory interpretation are sufficient to deal with questions of displacement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 363 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research for this article was undertaken under an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP1092671). Many thanks to Simon Evans, the Chief Investigator of that project, who has had significant input into this article, and to Cheryl Saunders and Michael Crommelin for their comments. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.

References

1 See the perceptive discussion in Frederic William Maitland, The Constitutional History of England (Cambridge University Press, first published 1908, 2000 ed) 418–21. For an example of where a prerogative was expressly curtailed, see British Coal Corporation v The King [1935] AC 500.

2 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (UK) c 25, s 3. In contrast, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (UK) c 14, s 3(2) expressly abolished any prerogative power to dissolve Parliament.

3 This article does not consider displacement of the capacities or ‘third source powers', as to which see, eg, Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Redmore Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 454. Note Hayne J's warning regarding the terminology of ‘capacities': Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 288 ALR 410, 469–70 [200]–[202].

4 Williams v Commonwealth (2012) 288 ALR 410 ('Williams’).

5 Ibid 413 [4], 417 [22], [24] (French CJ), 450–1 [123]–[124] (Gummow and Bell JJ), 538–9 [487]–[488], 548 [535] (Crennan J), 553 [557], 559 [582] (Kiefel J).

6 Le Sueur, Andrew, Sunkin, Maurice and Murkens, Jo, Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press, 2010) 379–82.Google Scholar

7 See also SirWade, William, ‘Procedure and Prerogative in Public Law’ (1985) 101 Law Quarterly Review 180.Google Scholar

8 Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press, 1765–9) vol 1, 232.Google Scholar

9 Ibid vol 1, 242–4.

10 Ibid vol 1, 245.

11 See generally Le May, G H L, The Victorian Constitution: Conventions, Usages and Contingencies (Duckworth, 1979) ch 3.Google Scholar

12 Dicey, A V, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Macmillan, 8th ed, 1915) 421.Google Scholar

13 Ibid 418, 421.

14 See A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1920] AC 508, 526 (Lord Dunedin); Burmah Oil Company (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, 99 (Lord Reid stating that this definition is ‘always quoted with approval’ but ‘does not take us very far’); Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, 398 (Lord Fraser of Tullybelton) ('GCHQ Case’); R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [House of Lords] [2009] 1 AC 453, 490 [69] (Lord Bingham of Cornhill); China Navigation Co Ltd v A-G [1932] 2 KB 197, 214 (Scrutton LJ); Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643, 719 (Roskill LJ); Re K, an Arranging Debtor [1927] 1 IR 260, 270 (Kennedy CJ); Commercial and Estates Co of Egypt v Board of Trade [1925] 1 KB 271, 294 (Atkin LJ, describing Dicey's statement as ‘a passage which I think has now become authoritative’).

15 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 54; Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 79, 108 (Brennan J). For citation by commentators see Joseph Chitty, A Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the Crown: And the Relative Duties and Rights of the Subject (Garland, first published 1820, 1978 ed) 4; Anson described Blackstone's definition as ‘too vague to be of practical value': SirAnson, William R, The Law and Custom of the Constitution (Clarendon Press, 3rd ed, 1907) vol 2, 3.Google Scholar Bacon's definition is closer to Blackstone's than Dicey's: Bacon, Matthew, A New Abridgment of the Law (T & J W Johnson, 1876) vol 8, 5.Google Scholar

16 Note also Lloyd LJ's statement in R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers; Ex parte Datafin Plc [1987] QB 815, 848 that ‘[s]trictly the term “prerogative” should be confined to those powers which are unique to the Crown', which is consistent with the reasoning underlying Blackstone's view: Elliott, Mark, The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review (Hart Publishing, 2001) 172–4.Google Scholar

17 Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Official Liquidator of EO Farley Ltd (In Liq) (1940) 63 CLR 278, 320–1. Summarising part of his 1924 doctoral thesis: Evatt, H V, Certain Aspects of the Royal Prerogative: A Study in Constitutional Law (LLD Thesis, University of Sydney, 1924)Google Scholar later published as Evatt, H V, The Royal Prerogative (Law Book, 1987).Google Scholar

18 Evatt's classification of the prerogatives is reflected in subsequent High Court jurisprudence: Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2010) 242 CLR 195, 210 [32] (French CJ), 226–7 [88] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ); Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex parte Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410, 447 (Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ); Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1, 83 [214] (Gummow, Crennan and Bell JJ); Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) v Official Liquidator of EO Farley Ltd (In Liq) (1940) 63 CLR 278, 304, 308 (Dixon J).

19 Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1, 60 [127] (French CJ).

20 Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168.

21 Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477; Oates v A-G (Cth) (2003) 214 CLR 496.

22 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491.

23 Farey v Burvett (1916) 21 CLR 433, 452.

24 Commonwealth and Central Wool Committee v Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Co Ltd (1922) 31 CLR 421, 442, 446.

25 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 53.

26 Pape v Commissioner of Taxation (2009) 238 CLR 1.

27 Ibid 60 [127] (French CJ), 83 [214]–[215] (Gummow, Crennan and Bell JJ); Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 538–9 [179] (French J); Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2010) 242 CLR 195, 210 [30] (French CJ), 226 [86] (Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ); Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 498; Re Ditfort; Ex parte Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 347, 369, quoted in Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 538–9 [179]; Habib v Commonwealth (2010) 183 FCR 62, 99–100 [128].

28 Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 488, 491, 501, 508; Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 539–49 [181]–[185], 545 [201]–[202], 545–6 [204]; Northern Territory v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust (2008) 236 CLR 24, 58 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ); Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 69–70 [85] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 501 (Mason J); Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex parte Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410, 424 (McHugh J).

29 de Smith, Stanley and Brazier, Rodney, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Penguin, 8th ed, 1998) 137–8Google Scholar; Public Administration Select Committee (UK), House of Commons, Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament (2004).

30 Syrett, Keith, ‘Prerogative Powers: New Labour's Forgotten Constitutional Reform?’ (1998) 13 Denning Law Journal 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leigh, Ian, ‘The Prerogative, Legislative Power and the Democratic Deficit: The Fire Brigades Union Case’ [1995] 3 Web Journal of Current Legal IssuesGoogle Scholar; Tomkins, Adam, Our Republican Constitution (Hart Publishing, 2005) 57–61, 132–4.Google Scholar

31 See, eg, Poole, Thomas, ‘United Kingdom: The Royal Prerogative’ (2010) 8 International Journal of Constitutional Law 146, 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R v Home Secretary; Ex parte Fire Brigade's Union [1995] 2 AC 513, 552; United Kingdom, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 21 April 1993, vol 223, col 485–7 (John Garrett).

32 See, eg, Gladstone, David, ‘What Shall We Do with the Crown Prerogative?’ (1998) 4 Journal of Legislative Studies 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldring, John, ‘The Impact of Statutes on the Royal Prerogative; Australasian Attitudes as to the Rule in Attorney-General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd’ (1974) 48 Australian Law Journal 434Google Scholar; Blackburn, Robert and Plant, Raymond, ‘Monarchy and the Royal Prerogative', in Blackburn, Robert and Plant, Raymond (eds), Constitutional Reform: The Labour Government's Constitutional Reform Agenda (Longman, 1999) 146.Google Scholar

33 Harris, B V, ‘Replacement of the Royal Prerogative in New Zealand’ (2009) 23 New Zealand Universities Law Review 285Google Scholar; Tomkins, Adam, ‘The Role of the Courts in the Political Constitution’ (2010) 60 University of Toronto Law Journal 1, 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Robertson, Geoffrey, Freedom, the Individual and the Law (Penguin, 6th ed, 1989) 387Google Scholar; Tomkins, Adam, Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2003) 83Google Scholar; Tomkins, ‘The Role of the Courts in the Political Constitution', above n 33, 10; AW Bradley, ‘Police Powers and the Prerogative’ [1988] Public Law 298.

35 Lindell, Geoffrey, ‘Responsible Government', in Finn, P D (ed), Essays on Law and Government (Law Book, 1995) vol 1, ch 4Google Scholar; Parker, R S, ‘The Meaning of Responsible Government’ (1976) 11 Politics 178, 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Australian Constitutional Commission, Final Report of the Constitutional Commission (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1988) vol 1, 84–9.Google Scholar

36 Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129, 146–7; R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers’ Society (1956) 94 CLR 254, 275; Marks v Commonwealth (1964) 111 CLR 549, 557–8; New South Wales v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337, 364–5 ('Seas and Submerged Lands Case’); Victoria v Commonwealth (1975) 134 CLR 338, 384, 405–6; Salemi v Mackellar [No 2] (1977) 137 CLR 396, 403; Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54, 87; FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342; Egan v Willis (1998) 195 CLR 424.

37 Seas and Submerged Lands Case (1975) 135 CLR 337, 364–5.

38 Richardson, J E, ‘The Executive Power of the Commonwealth’ in Zines, Leslie (ed), Commentaries on the Australian Constitution: A Tribute to Geoffrey Sawer (Butterworths, 1977) 50, 64–8Google Scholar; Australian Constitutional Commission, Final Report of the Constitutional Commission (Australian Government Publishing Service, 1988) vol 1, 355–6Google Scholar; Winterton, George, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General (Melbourne University Press, 1983) ch 5.Google Scholar

39 Kleinerman, Benjamin A, The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power (University Press of Kansas, 2009) 4–5, 11Google Scholar; Barron, David J and Lederman, Martin S, ‘The Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb — Framing the Problem, Doctrine, and Original Understanding’ (2008) 121 Harvard Law Review 689Google Scholar; Barron, David J and Lederman, Martin S, ‘The Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb — A Constitutional History’ (2004) 121 Harvard Law Review 941.Google Scholar

40 Brown v West (1990) 169 CLR 195, 202. Note that J E Richardson argued that the s 61 executive power is ‘partly inalienable and not within reach of the federal Parliament': Richardson, ‘The Executive Power of the Commonwealth', above n 38, 80, 85. For discussion and critique see Winterton, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General, above n 38, 33–4.

41 Not all commentators favour a presumption of easy displacement. For example, George Winterton argued that there should be a mild presumption against displacement, especially where prerogatives are well established and important to government: George Winterton, ‘The Relationship between Commonwealth Legislative and Executive Power’ (2004). 25 Adelaide Law Review 21, 48; Winterton, George, ‘The Limits and Use of Executive Power by Governments’ (2004) 31 Federal Law Review 421, 443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Cohn, Margit, ‘Medieval Chains, Invisible Inks: On Non-Statutory Powers of the Executive’ (2005) 25 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 97, 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Margit Cohn, ‘Judicial Review of Non-Statutory Executive Powers after Bancoult: A Unified Anxious Model’ [2009] Public Law 260.

43 Harris, B V, ‘The “Third Source” of Authority for Government Action Revisited’ (2007) 123 Law Quarterly Review 225, 246.Google Scholar

44 Leigh, ‘The Prerogative, Legislative Power and the Democratic Deficit', above n 30.

45 Turpin, Colin and Tomkins, Adam, British Government and the Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 6th ed, 2007) 471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 540 [183] (French J).

47 Evans, Simon, ‘The Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and the MV Tampa’ (2002) 13 Public Law Review 94, 98.Google Scholar

48 Kerr, Duncan, ‘Executive Power and the Theory of its Limits: Still Evolving or Finally Settled?’ (2011) 13 Constitutional Law & Policy Review 22, 28.Google Scholar

49 (1974) 131 CLR 477.

50 Goldring, above n 32.

51 See above n 34.

52 Goldring, above n 32, 442; Winterton, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General, above n 38, 115.

53 Turpin and Tomkins, British Government and the Constitution, above n 45.

54 Kerr, ‘Executive Power and the Theory of its Limits', above n 49, 27.

55 [1920] AC 508.

56 Medley, Dudley Julius, A Student's Manual of English Constitutional History (B H Blackwell, 3rd ed, 1902) 78–9.Google Scholar

57 Magdalen College, Cambridge Case (1673) 11 Co Rep 66b, 74b; 77 ER 1235, 1247 ('where the King has any prerogative, estate, right, title, or interest, … by the general words of an Act he shall not be barred of them’); A-G v Allgood (1743) Parker 1, 3; 145 ER 696, 697 ('The Crown is not bound where it would be ousted of a precedent prerogative without express words’); Théberge v Laudry (1876) 2 App Cas 102, 106 ('Their Lordships wish to state distinctly, that they do not desire to imply any doubt whatever as to the general principle, that the prerogative of the Crown cannot be taken away except by express words; and they would be prepared to hold, as often has been held before, that in any case where the prerogative of the Crown has existed, precise words must be shewn to take away that prerogative’); Woolley v A-G (Vic) (1877) 2 App Cas 163, 167–8 ('it is a recognised principle of the construction of statutes that the prerogative rights of the Crown can be affected only by express words or necessary implication’); Ex parte Postmaster General; Re Bonham (1879) 10 Ch D 595, 601, 603 (Jessel MR) ('It does not appear to me, when we look at those sections, that there is anything in them to shew that the Crown is intended to be bound by any of the other sections of the Act, and deprived of its undoubted prerogative’); Cushing v Dupuy (1880) 5 App Cas 409, 416–7, 419 ('the rights of the Crown can only be taken away by express words’); Re Will of Wi Matua [1908] AC 448, 449 (approving Théberge v Laudry and Cushing v Dupuy); The Odessa [1916] 1 AC 145, 162 ('it must be remembered that the Crown's prerogative can only be abridged by express words or necessary implication’); Re H J Webb & Co (Smithfield, London) Ltd [1922] 2 Ch 369, 387 ('It is, I think, clear that the Crown's prerogatives may be affected by the provisions of a statute without express words if that result follows by necessary implication’); Gorton Local Board v Prison Commissioners [1904] 2 KB 165, 168 (Wills J) ('In my judgment, however anxious one may naturally be to confine the application of the prerogative within its legitimate limits, it seems to me that it is clear, from authority and from principles which are established beyond cavil and dispute, that the Crown is not bound unless it is expressly or by necessary implication named’).

58 Bacon, Matthew, A New Abridgment of the Law (T & J W Johnson, 1876) vol 8, 92Google Scholar; Wooddesson, Richard, Lectures on the Law of England (Richards, 2nd ed, with notes and additions by W R Williams, 1834) vol 1, 21Google Scholar; SirDwarris, Fortunatus, assisted by Amyot, W H, A General Treatise on Statutes: Their Rules of Construction, and the Proper Boundaries of Legislation and of Judicial Interpretation (W Benning, 2nd ed, 1848) vol 2, 523–4Google Scholar; SirComyns, John, A Digest of the Laws of England (Collins & Hannay, 5th ed, 1824–26) vol 5, 324Google Scholar; Craies, William Feilden, A Treatise on Statute Law (Stevens and Haynes, 2 nd ed, 1911) 376–8.Google Scholar

59 Various later cases have also taken this approach: British Coal Corporation v The King [1935] AC 500, 519; Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 488, 491, 501, 508; Ling v Commonwealth (1994) 51 FCR 88, 92; Simpson v A-G [1955] NZLR 271, 280–1; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 44.

60 A full list is given in Manisty, Herbert F and Chitty, Herbert, A Selection of Legal Maxims: Classified and Illustrated by Herbert Broom (Sweet and Maxwell, 7th ed, 1900) 57–8.Google Scholar

61 Théberge v Laudry (1876) 2 App Cas 102, 106–7; Gould v Stuart [1896] AC 575, 578; R v Wright (1834) 1 A&E 436, 446–7; 110 ER 1273, 1278; Jamieson v Downie [1923] 1 AC 691, 694.

62 Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1.

63 Street, H, ‘The Effect of Statutes upon the Rights and Liabilities of the Crown’ (1948) 7 University of Toronto Law Journal 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berry, Duncan, ‘Crown Immunity from Statute: Bropho v Western Australia’ (1993) 14 Statute Law Review 204, 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also R v Eldorado Nuclear Ltd [1983] 2 SCR 551.

64 [1920] AC 508.

65 Keir, D L and Lawson, F H, Cases in Constitutional Law (Clarendon Press, 6th ed, 1979) 98.Google Scholar

66 Barnett, Hilaire, Constitutional and Administrative Law (Routledge-Cavendish, 8th ed, 2011) 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bennion, F A R, Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (LexisNexis, 5th ed, 2008) 239Google Scholar; Ward, Robert, ‘Baton Rounds and Circulars’ (1988) 47 Cambridge Law Journal 155, 156CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Mayor, Alderman, and Citizens of the City of Manchester v Lyons (1882) 22 Ch D 287.

67 Cf R (Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] 3 All ER 548, 564 [50].

68 Defence Act 1842 (UK) 5 & 6 Vict 1; Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act 1914 (UK) 4 & 5 Geo 5 and the regulations made under those acts.

69 [1915] 3 KB 649.

70 Ibid 660.

71 Swinfen Eady MR held that Re a Petition of Right had no application to the De Keyser's Royal Hotel case, which was concerned with ‘taking possession of land and buildings for administrative purposes': Re a Petition of Right of De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1919] 2 Ch 197, 229 (Swinfen Eady MR), 231 (Warrington LJ).

72 A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1920] AC 508, 525 (Lord Dunedin) ('I am bound to say that I do not think that this case can be distinguished from that [Re a Petition of Right] in essential particulars’).

73 Swinfen Eady MR and Warrington LJ, Duke LJ dissenting.

74 Re a Petition of Right of De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1919] 2 Ch 197, 216–7, relying on the exceptions to the strict rule that the prerogative cannot be taken away except by express words or necessary implication. This statement was approved in the House of Lords by Lords Dunedin and Atkinson: A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1920] AC 508, 526, 538.

75 Re a Petition of Right of De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1919] 2 Ch 197, 221 (Swinfen Eady MR), 232 (Warrington LJ).

76 A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1920] AC 508, 526.

77 Ibid 528.

78 Ibid 540.

79 Ibid 561.

80 Ibid 554.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid 575.

83 Leigh, ‘The Prerogative, Legislative Power and the Democratic Deficit', above n 30.

84 Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 501.

85 Minister for Works (WA) v Gulson (1944) 69 CLR 338, 364.

86 New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Ltd [2009] 3 NZLR 438, [63].

87 A-G (NSW) v Butterworth & Co (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 195, 224.

88 Peerless Bakery Ltd v Clinkard (No 3) [1953] NZLR 796, 801; see also Simpson v A-G [1955] NZLR 271, 280.

89 Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex parte Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410, 459 (McHugh J), cited with approval in Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 70 [85] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Northern Territory v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust (2008) 236 CLR 24, 58 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).

90 See, eg, Ling v Commonwealth (1994) 51 FCR 88.

91 A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1920] AC 508, 575–6.

92 See Peter W Hogg and Patrick J Monahan, Liability of the Crown (Carswell, 3rd ed 2000) 292–3.

93 Joseph, Philip A, Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand (Thomson Brooker's, 3rd ed, 2007) 647–8.Google Scholar

94 The covering the field approach was taken by Lord Dunedin, whereas the remaining judges emphasised the statutory conditions or restrictions approach.

95 Lords Atkinson, Sumner, Moulton and Parmoor. See R (Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] 3 All ER 548, 566 [57].

96 Such as where a statute requires the executive to act in a certain way and the prerogative power (prior to displacement) permitted the executive to act without following that requirement.

97 Neil Parpworth argued that ‘[t]he principle which emerges from [De Keyser] is clear. In the event of a conflict between the prerogative and a statutory power, it is the latter which prevails': Constitutional and Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 7th ed, 2012) 57.Google Scholar

98 A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1920] AC 508, 528 (Lord Dunedin).

99 Ex parte McLean (1930) 43 CLR 472, 483.

100 See, eg, Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex parte Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410, 432 (in relation to inconsistency under s 109 of the Constitution).

101 Covering the field arguments were made, and rejected in Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 480, 500, 508; Ling v Commonwealth (1994) 51 FCR 88, 92; Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 540–1 [185], 544 [200] (French J); note the judgment of Black CJ at 501 [34], 503 [37], 507 [61], 508 [64].

102 For example, Bennett v Commonwealth [1980] 1 NSWLR 581. See also Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 66 [72] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ), 82 [120] (Callinan J).

103 British Coal Corporation v R [1935] AC 500, 519.

104 R v Home Secretary; Ex parte Fire Brigade's Union [1995] 2 AC 513; R (Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] 3 All ER 548; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26; Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643; Northern Territory v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust (2008) 236 CLR 24, 58 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ); Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 70 [85] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 501 (Mason J); Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex Parte Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410, 459 (McHugh J).

105 [1923] AC 617.

106 [1921] 1 IR 265.

107 Presumably a reference to the Irish War of Independence (1919–21).

108 Egan v Macready [1921] 1 IR 265, 273.

109 Ibid 271.

110 Ibid 273.

111 Re a Petition of Right of De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1919] 2 Ch 197, 216; A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Limited [1920] AC 508, 528, 539–40.

112 Egan v Macready [1921] 1 IR 265, 273.

113 (2001) 52 NSWLR 533.

114 Kelly v Commissioner of the Department of Corrective Services (2001) 52 NSWLR 533, 558 [58].

115 Ibid 551 [40].

116 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 44.

117 Singer v Statutory & Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal (1986) 5 NSWLR 646.

118 Ibid 655.

119 Ibid 656–7.

120 (1990) 169 CLR 195.

121 Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952 (Cth) and Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (Cth).

122 Brown v West (1990) 169 CLR 195, 205.

123 [1995] 2 AC 513.

124 R v Home Secretary Ex parte Fire Brigade's Union [1995] 2 AC 513, 551–2, 571, 577–8.

125 Ibid 552.

126 Ibid 571–2 (Lord Lloyd), 578 (Lord Nicholls).

127 See below, Part IV(F)..

128 The Tampa case has been heavily criticised: eg Tomkins, Our Republican Constitution, above n 30, 58–60; Evans, above n 47; Zines, Leslie, ‘The Inherent Executive Power of the Commonwealth’ (2005) 16 Public Law Review 279, 281, 292Google Scholar; Billings, Peter, ‘Refugees, the Rule of Law and Executive Power: A(nother) Case of the Conjuror's Rabbit?’ (2003) 54(4) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

129 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 545 [202] (French J).

130 See also Fitzgerald v Muldoon [1976] 2 NZLR 615.

131 But see Simpson v A-G [1955] NZLR 271, discussed below..

132 See above, Part III.

133 Rumble, Gary A, ‘Manufacturing and Avoiding Constitution Section 109 Inconsistency: Law and Practice’ (2010) 38 Federal Law Review 445CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rumble, Gary A, ‘The Nature of Inconsistency under Section 109 of the Constitution’ (1980) 11 Federal Law Review 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morabito, Vince and Strain, Henriette, ‘The Section 109 “Cover the Field” Test of Inconsistency: an Undesirable Legal Fiction’ (1993) 12 University of Tasmania Law Review 182Google Scholar; Murray-Jones, Allan, ‘The Tests for Inconsistency under Section 109 of the Constitution’ (1979) 10 Federal Law Review 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

134 SirWade, William and Forsyth, Christopher, Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 10th ed, 2009), 181.Google Scholar

135 Burmah Oil Company (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, 106–7, 149.

136 Singer v Statutory & Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal (1986) 5 NSWLR 646, which conceivably could be considered under this heading, has been discussed above.

137 A-G v De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508.

138 [1921] 1 IR 265.

139 (2001) 52 NSWLR 533.

140 [1977] QB 643.

141 Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643, 728.

142 Re a Petition of Right of De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd v R [1919] 2 Ch 197, 216.

143 Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643, 707.

144 Ibid 701, 722, 728.

145 (2005) 224 CLR 44. The decision was cited approvingly in Northern Territory v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust (2008) 236 CLR 24, 58 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ).

146 Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 56–7 [25]–[26] (Gleeson CJ) 61 [51], 70 [88] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); 81 [118] (Callinan J); 92–3 [150]–[151] (Heydon J).

147 See also Delivery Drugs Ltd v British Columbia (Deputy Minister of Health) (2007) 73 BCLR (4th) 261.

148 Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 51–2 [10] (Gleeson CJ); 64–8 [64]–[78] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

149 Ibid 56 [24]–[25] (Gleeson CJ).

150 Ibid 69–70 [85] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

151 Section 51(1) provided ‘An executive officer may be removed from office at any time for any or no reason and without notice: (a) by the Governor on the recommendation of the Commissioner, in the case of a Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, or (b) by the Commissioner, in any other case'.

152 Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 82 [120], 84–5 [129], 89 [141] (Callinan J).

153 Ibid 92 [150], 96 [159] (Heydon J).

154 [1980] 1 NSWLR 581.

155 Bennett v Commonwealth [1980] 1 NSWLR 581, 584, 587.

156 See, eg, Barratt v Howard (2000) 96 FCR 428; Kelly v Commissioner of the Department of Corrective Services (2001) 52 NSWLR 533, 551 [40]; Gould v Stuart [1896] AC 575.

157 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26.

158 Ibid 53.

159 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491.

160 Ibid 548 [214] (French J).

161 See the judgment of Black CJ: Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 510 [73]; Zines, ‘The Inherent Executive Power of the Commonwealth', above n 128, 281, 292.

162 This confirms Winterton's conclusion: Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General, above n 38, 113–15.

163 CfBailey, S H, Harris, D J, and Jones, B L, Civil Liberties: Cases and Materials (Butterworths, 4th ed, 1995) 5Google Scholar, who argue that ‘[t]he judges have a long and proud tradition of protecting civil liberties at common law against encroachment by the executive'.

164 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491.

165 Ibid 543 [193].

166 Ibid 545 [202].

167 Evans, above n 47, 98.

168 (1974) 131 CLR 477.

169 (2003) 214 CLR 496; on appeal from Oates v A-G (Cth) (2002) 118 FCR 544.

170 ('Extradition (Foreign States) Act’).

171 Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth) s 21.

172 Ibid s 22.

173 Ibid s 23.

174 Aughterson, E P, Extradition: Australian Law and Procedure (Law Book, 1995), 43.Google Scholar

175 This was amended in subsequent versions of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth): see s 4(1A) (definition of ‘extradition crime’).

176 Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 485 (Barwick CJ). Specialty requires that any person surrendered to a country by a foreign state is not to be prosecuted or detained for any other offence than those for which the person was surrendered.

177 Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 488, 491, 501, 508.

178 (2003) 214 CLR 496; on appeal from Oates v A-G (Cth) (2002) 118 FCR 544.

179 ('Extradition Act’).

180 Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ‘Antony Oates Pleads Guilty to Criminal ‘Charges’ (Media Release, 05-201, 18 July 2005) <http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/05-201+Antony+Oates+pleads+guilty+to+criminal+charges>.

181 After being extradited to Australia, Mr Oates was charged with making improper use of his position as a director of Bell Resources. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years and four months in prison: Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ‘Antony Oates sentenced’ (Media Release, 05-268, 7 September 2005) <http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/asic.nsf/byheadline/05-268+Antony+Oates+sentenced>.

182 Treaty between the President of the Republic of Poland and His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India for the Surrender of Fugitive Criminals, signed 11 January 1932, 148 LNTS 221 (entered into force 12 March 1934).

183 By the Poland (Extradition: Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand) Order in Council 1934 (UK) (SI 1934/1413).

184 One count of conspiracy to defraud contrary to s 412 of the Criminal Code 1913 (WA), eight counts of improper use of position as a company director contrary to s 229(4) of the Companies (Western Australia) Code 1981 and eight counts of failure to act honestly as a company director contrary to s 229(1) of the Companies (Western Australia) Code 1981.

185 Note that the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Act 1985 (Cth) repealed sch 1 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth) and introduced a different definition of extradition offence.

186 Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) s 5 (definition of ‘extradition offence’).

187 The method had an obvious drawback in that when new offences were created, supplementary treaties would be necessary to cover those offences: Aughterson, above n 174, 57.

188 Oates v A-G (Cth) (2003) 214 CLR 496, 511.

189 Ibid; Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 501 (Mason J), 489 (McTiernan and Menzies JJ), 505 (Jacobs J).

190 Cf the discussion regarding reform of the prerogative in Sueur, Sunkin and Murkens, above n 6, 391–6.

191 Oates v A-G (Cth) (2003) 214 CLR 496, 512–13.

192 Important recent examples include the Trade Practices Amendment (Cartel Conduct and Other Measures) Act 2009 (Cth), criminalising cartel conduct in Australia, and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth) ss 29–33, 133, 146, 147 and 227–9.

193 See Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 (Cth) sch 1.

194 See also the difficulties discussed in relation to the deployment of troops abroad: House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Waging War: Parliament's Role and Responsibility, House of Lords Paper No 15, Session 2005–06 (2006) 24 [57].

195 See also Mokbel v The Queen [2013] VSCA 118 (17 May 2013) [65] (Maxwell ACJ, Buchanan and Weinberg JJA).

196 CfLocke, John, Two Treatises of Government (Awnsham Churchill, 1689) div 2 [145]–[148].Google Scholar

197 Winterton, Parliament, the Executive and the Governor-General, above n 38, 115–16.

198 See Mokbel v A-G (Cth) (2007) 162 FCR 296; Mokbel v A-G (Cth) (2007) 162 FCR 278.

199 (1994) 51 FCR 88.

200 The long title of which was ‘An Act to facilitate the refunding of payments made by overseas students unable to undertake or complete courses of study in Australia, and for other purposes'.

201 Overseas Students (Refunds) (People's Republic of China) Regulations 1991 (Cth), amended by the Overseas Students (Refunds) (People's Republic of China) Regulations (Amendment) 1992 (Cth).

202 That is, the implied right to be repaid upon failure to obtain a visa.

203 Ling v Commonwealth (1994) 51 FCR 88; Booth v Williams (1909) 9 SR (NSW) 421, 435–6; Re Richard Foreman & Sons Pty Ltd; Uther v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1947) 74 CLR 508, 528 (Dixon J).

204 (1909) 9 SR (NSW) 421.

205 Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477.

206 Ling v Commonwealth (1994) 51 FCR 88, 92.

207 Ibid 97.

208 Simpson v A-G [1955] NZLR 271.

209 Ibid 280.

210 British Coal Corporation v R [1935] AC 500, 519.

211 Simpson v A-G [1955] NZLR 271, 280–1.

212 See above Part III.

213 Section 101(1) provided: ‘For every general election the Governor-General shall, not later than seven days after the day of the dissolution or expiry of the then last Parliament, as the case may be, by Warrant under his hand in the form numbered (11) in the First Schedule hereto, direct the Clerk of the Writs to proceed with the elections'.

214 Gearty, Conor, ‘The Courts and Recent Exercises of the Prerogative’ (1987) 46(3) Cambridge Law Journal 372, 374CrossRefGoogle Scholar described the decision as ‘mystifying'. For the broader context of the decision, see McCrudden, Christopher and Chambers, Gerald (eds), Individual Rights and the Law in Britain (Clarendon Press, 1994) 57–9.Google Scholar

215 For another view, see Payne, Sebastian, ‘The Royal Prerogative’ in Sunkin, Maurice and Payne, Sebastian (eds), The Nature of the Crown (Clarendon Press, 1999) 77, 102–6.Google Scholar

216 Cohn, ‘Medieval Chains, Invisible Inks: On Non-Statutory Powers of the Executive', above n 42, 105, 108.

217 Ward, above n 66.

218 Feldman, David, ‘Democracy, the Rule of Law and Judicial Review’ (1990) 19 Federal Law Review 1, 26–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feldman, David, ‘Public Law Values in the House of Lords’ (1990) 106 Law Quarterly Review 246, 252.Google Scholar

219 Gearty, above n 214, 374.

220 Billings, above n 128, 417–18, 426; Tomkins, Our Republican Constitution, above n 30, 58–60; Syrett, above n 30, 121.

221 Tomkins, Public Law, above n 34, 83; AW Bradley, above n 34, 301.

222 Tomkins, ‘The Role of the Courts in the Political Constitution', above n 33, 8, 10.

223 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 53 (Purchas LJ).

224 Gearty, above n 214, 374.

225 This is recognised by Warburton, Damian, ‘Drawing the Thin Blue Line: The Reality of Who Controls the Police’ (2004) 77 Police Journal 135, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

226 Fisher v Oldham Corporation [1930] 2 KB 364; A-G (NSW) v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1955] AC 457; R v Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis; Ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118.

227 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 3942 (Croom-Johnson LJ), 46, 48–9, 50–1, 55 (Purchas LJ). Nourse LJ agreed with the reasons of Croom-Johnson LJ on this point: 56.

228 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 39.

229 Police Act 1964 (UK) c 48.

230 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 51.

231 Section 4(1) provided: ‘It shall be the duty of the police authority for every police area for which a police force is required to be maintained by section 1 of this Act to secure the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force for the area, and to exercise for that purpose the powers conferred on a police authority by this Act'.

232 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26, 44.

233 Ibid 50–1.

234 Ibid 53 (Purchas LJ stated that the prerogative to keep the peace of the realm included power ‘to do all that is reasonably necessary to preserve the peace of the realm’).

235 Egan v Macready [1921] 1 IR 265.

236 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 540 [183] (French J).

237 Ibid.

238 Ibid [184] (French J).

239 Ibid 540–1 [185] (French J).

240 Oates v A-G (Cth) (2003) 214 CLR 496, on appeal from Oates v A-G (Cth) (2002) 118 FCR 544.

241 Compare Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 488, 491, 501, 508 with British Coal Corporation v R [1935] AC 500, 519; see also Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491, 539–1 [181]–[185], 545 [201]–[202], 545–6 [204].

242 Northern Territory v Arnhem Land Aboriginal Land Trust (2008) 236 CLR 24, 58 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ); Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44, 69–70 [85] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ); Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477, 501 (Mason J); Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal (NSW); Ex parte Defence Housing Authority (1997) 190 CLR 410, 459 (McHugh J).

243 Payne, ‘The Royal Prerogative', above n 215, 107.

244 Markesinis, B S, ‘The Royal Prerogative Re-visited’ (1973) 32 Cambridge Law Journal 287, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

245 See above Part IV(B).

246 Note the discussion of Oates and Barton above Part IV(E).

247 Cf Tomkins, ‘The Role of the Courts in the Political Constitution', above n 33, 9.

248 See text accompanying notes 42–52 and notes 216–222.

249 Barton v Commonwealth (1974) 131 CLR 477.

250 Oates v A-G (Cth) (2003) 214 CLR 496.

251 Ling v Commonwealth (1994) 51 FCR 88.

252 Simpson v A-G [1955] NZLR 271.

253 Tamanaha, Brian Z, On the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press, 2004) 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Preston, Brian J, ‘The Enduring Importance of the Rule of Law in Times of Change’ (2012) 86 Australian Law Journal 175, 179.Google Scholar

254 Note also that many cases were split decisions, reflecting this uncertainty: see, eg, R v Home Secretary; Ex parte Fire Brigade's Union [1995] 2 AC 513; Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491; Oates v A-G (Cth) (2002) 118 FCR 544; Minister for Works (WA) v Gulson (1944) 69 CLR 338. In Jarratt v Commissioner of Police (NSW) (2005) 224 CLR 44 four separate judgments were delivered.

255 Ruddock v Vadarlis (2001) 110 FCR 491.