Abstract
This article indicates that there are various rights, or privileges, of the Crown (so - called ‘Crown prerogatives’) which still exist under English law and which are at variance with modern society and human rights. Indeed, one would assert the Crown prerogative is the biggest impediment in English based legal systems to an extension of human rights at present, since it is so ample in scope and yet so indeterminate in nature.This article argues that martial law - that is, the right of the Crown to apply military law to civilians (which often resulted in their summary trial and execution in past rebellions) - should be abolished. It is unnecessary and contrary to modern human rights. Also abolished should be the right of the Crown to billet members of the armed forces on the public - now governed by legislation. Finally, the Crown prerogative to forcibly conscript able-bodied male subjects into the army and navy should be abolished. It was replaced by legislation during World War I and II since it was thought to be too uncertain, legally.In conclusion, if these Crown prerogatives were abolished throughout the Commonwealth it would remove much old law and help human rights. It would also allow legislation enacted by Parliament to cover the field, as and when required in the case of martial law.
Highlights
A previous article in the Nottingham Law Journal advocated the abolition of various obsolete Crown prerogatives relating to the military.1 As noted in that article, a vast number of decisions are taken in the name of that mysterious - and amorphous entity - ‘the Crown’, the Queen herself, today, only retains a ceremonial role and she is not held accountable for such decisions
This article indicates that there are various rights, or privileges, of the Crown which still exist under English law and which are at variance with modern society and human rights
One would assert the Crown prerogative is the biggest impediment in English based legal systems to an extension of human rights at present, since it is so ample in scope and yet so indeterminate in nature
Summary
A previous article in the Nottingham Law Journal advocated the abolition of various obsolete Crown prerogatives relating to the military. As noted in that article, a vast number of decisions are taken in the name of that mysterious - and amorphous entity - ‘the Crown’, the Queen herself, today, only retains a ceremonial role and she is not held accountable for such decisions. The application of military law (and military courts) to civilians during: (i) riots or rebellion; or (ii) war.22 This concept of martial law is often confused with other Crown prerogatives; viz. It should be the responsibility of Parliament alone to enact legislation imposing military law on civilians in any exceptional situation where this might be required since it is such a severe curtailment of human rights; In the case of (d), this has never occurred, as such, in England throughout its long history It is not ‘law’ - it is rule by military dictatorship.. If Britain were to have a military dictatorship it would claim that its acts were not military and civil and would argue for their legitimacy (to be rejected on a return to democracy)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have