Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Separation of Powers - Coggle Diagram

- - - - M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377:
        
        "Parliament makes the law, the executive carry the law into effect and the judiciary enforce the law... The judges cannot enforce the law... The judges cannot enforce the law against the Crown as monarch because the Crown as monarch can do no wrong but judges enforce the law against the Crown as executive and against the individuals who from time to time represent the Crown".
        
        Injunctive relief could be granted in an action against a minster personally
- - - - Constitutional Reform Act 2005 happened:
        
        Establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission: open and transparent system
        
        He is now head of judiciary and
        
        He may no longer sit as a judge
        
        His role now (post-CRA 2005):
        
        Make sure there is an efficient + effective court system that provides necessary resources and accounting to Parliament for efficient use
        
        Decide framework of the court system (determining the total number of judges after consulting LCJ)
        
        Determine pay and conditions of judicial service (taking into account recommendations of Senior Salaries Review Body)
        
        He and the LCJ handles complaints, supported by the Judicial Conduct & Investigations Office and reporting to Parliament for the operations of the complaints system as a whole
        
        Defend judicial independence inside government
    - - Circuit and District judges:
        
        Can be removed by the LC. But he can only do it if he LCJ agrees
      - Judicial Pensions & Retirement Act 1993:
        
        Judges in the 'higher courts' like the HC (QC, Chancery and Family Division), the CA and the DC have life tenure until mandatory retirement age of 70
      - The Judicial Conduct Investigations office (JCIO):
        
        Independent statutory body that supports the LC and the LCJ in their responsibility for judicial discipline (investigate and reports complaints)
- - - - Burma Oil v. Lord Advocate (1965):
        
        Facts: During the Japanese invasion of Burma Japan ordered oil installations to be destroyed. But it was not disputed whether the destruction was unlawful or not as it was assumed that it was carried under royal prerogative. The owners of the oil installations brought actions against them claiming they were entitled to compensation
        
        Held: HoL held that they were entitled to compensation because if they were doing something under a royal prerogative he is entitled to compensation at the public expense.
        
        But the War Damaged Act 1965 was passed - provides that no one is entitled to receive compensation for the acts of Crown in destroying property during wartimes (to prevent opening of the floodgates)
    - - R v. R (1992):
        
        Facts: Husbands were exempt from prosecution for marital rape. It is believed to be impossible for a husband to rape his wife. This case led to revision to be made
        
        Held: The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act came to recognise the illegality of rape in a marriage and removed the word unlawful from definition of rape