548:
necessary to be enforced by the courts. In most cases that power is derived from statute though in some cases, as indeed in the present case, it may still be derived from the prerogative. In yet other cases, as the decisions show, the two powers may coexist or the statutory power may by necessary implication have replaced the former prerogative power. If the executive in pursuance of the statutory power does an act affecting the rights of the citizen, it is beyond question that in principle the manner of the exercise of that power may today be challenged on one or more of the three grounds which I have mentioned earlier in this speech. If the executive instead of acting under a statutory power acts under a prerogative power and in particular a prerogative power delegated to the respondent under article 4 of the Order in
Council of 1982, so as to affect the rights of the citizen, I am unable to see, subject to what I shall say later, that there is any logical reason why the fact that the source of the power is the prerogative and not statute should today deprive the citizen of that right of challenge to the manner of its exercise which he would possess were the source of the power statutory. In either case the act in question is the act of the executive. To talk of that act as the act of the sovereign savours of the archaism of past centuries. In reaching this conclusion I find myself in agreement with my noble and learned friends Lord Scarman and Lord Diplock whose speeches I have had the advantage of reading in draft since completing the preparation of this speech.
509:, 1964 SC (HL) 117 shows. While I see no a priori reason to rule out "irrationality" as a ground for judicial review of a ministerial decision taken in the exercise of "prerogative" powers, I find it difficult to envisage in any of the various fields in which the prerogative remains the only source of the relevant decision-making power a decision of a kind that would be open to attack through the judicial process upon this ground. Such decisions will generally involve the application of government policy. The reasons for the decision-maker taking one course rather than another do not normally involve questions to which, if disputed, the judicial process is adapted to provide the right answer, by which I mean that the kind of evidence that is admissible under judicial procedures and the way in which it has to be adduced tend to exclude from the attention of the court competing policy considerations which, if the executive discretion is to be wisely exercised, need to be weighed against one another – a balancing exercise which judges by their upbringing and experience are ill-qualified to perform. So I leave this as an open question to be dealt with on a case to case basis if, indeed, the case should ever arise.
453:
prerogative," or of what powers exercisable by executive officers acting on behalf of central government that are not shared by private citizens qualify for inclusion under this particular label. It does not, for instance, seem to me to matter whether today the right of the executive government that happens to be in power to dismiss without notice any member of the home civil service upon which perforce it must rely for the administration of its policies, and the correlative disability of the executive government that is in power to agree with a civil servant that his service should be on terms that did not make him subject to instant dismissal, should be ascribed to "the prerogative" or merely to a consequence of the survival, for entirely different reasons, of a rule of constitutional law whose origin is to be found in the theory that those by whom the administration of the realm is carried on do so as personal servants of the monarch who can dismiss them at will, because the King can do no wrong.
442:
courts. Lord
Diplock wrote "it is par excellence a non-justiciable question. The judicial process is totally inept to deal with the sort of problems which it involves." Lord Fraser stated that while the courts would not by default accept the government's argument that the matter was one of national security, it was a "matter of evidence" and the evidence provided in this case showed that the government was correct. Lord Diplock held that any prerogative power which impacted on a person's "private rights or legitimate expectations" was amenable to review, while Lords Fraser and Brightman held that only powers delegated from the monarch could be subject to judicial review as a candidate for such a review as the powers in question had been delegated from the monarch to the Minister for the Civil Service.
457:
on the private rights or legitimate expectations of other persons which would render the decision subject to judicial review if the power of the decision-maker to make them were statutory in origin. From matters so relatively minor as the grant of pardons to condemned criminals, of honours to the good and great, of corporate personality to deserving bodies of persons, and of bounty from moneys made available to the executive government by
Parliament, they extend to matters so vital to the survival and welfare of the nation as the conduct of relations with foreign states and – what lies at the heart of the present case – the defence of the realm against potential enemies. Adopting the phraseology used in the
654:, one of the matters decided was whether or not the courts could subject Orders in Council to judicial review. The Lords unanimously agreed that although Orders in Council were defined as "primary legislation" in the Human Rights Act, there is a significant difference in that Orders in Council are an executive product and lack the "representative character" that comes with parliamentary authority and approval. As such, the Lords saw "no reason why prerogative legislation should not be subject to review on ordinary principles of legality, rationality and procedural impropriety in the same way as any other executive action".
552:
subject of judicial review. Prerogative powers such as those relating to the making of treaties, the defence of the realm, the prerogative of mercy, the grant of honours, the dissolution of
Parliament and the appointment of ministers as well as others are not, I think, susceptible to judicial review because their nature and subject matter is such as not to be amenable to the judicial process. The courts are not the place wherein to determine whether a treaty should be concluded or the armed forces disposed in a particular manner or Parliament dissolved on one date rather than another.
466:
which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call "illegality," the second "irrationality" and the third "procedural impropriety." That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of "proportionality" which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the
295:. These powers purported to allow the Minister for the Civil Service to make regulations for the Civil Service. Despite an extensive publicity campaign by trade unions, the government refused to reverse its decision but instead offered affected employees the choice between £1,000 and the membership of a staff association or dismissal. Employees dismissed could not rely on an industrial tribunal since they were not covered by the relevant employment legislation. As such, the Council of Civil Service Unions decided that
1315:
2056:
29:
392:
627:
There is no difference between the conclusion reached by your
Lordships except... whether the reviewability of an exercise of a prerogative power is limited to the case where the power has been delegated to the decision-maker by Order in Council, so that the decision-making process which is sought to
555:
In my view the exercise of the prerogative which enabled the oral instructions of 22 December 1983 to be given does not by reason of its subject matter fall within what for want of a better phrase I would call the "excluded categories" some of which I have just mentioned. It follows that in principle
547:
My Lords, the right of the executive to do a lawful act affecting the rights of the citizen, whether adversely or beneficially, is founded upon the giving to the executive of a power enabling it to do that act. The giving of such a power usually carries with it legal sanctions to enable that power if
456:
Nevertheless, whatever label may be attached to them there have unquestionably survived into the present day a residue of miscellaneous fields of law in which the executive government retains decision-making powers that are not dependent upon any statutory authority but nevertheless have consequences
590:
The GCHQ case, therefore, was highly important since it held that the application of judicial review would be dependent on the nature of the government's powers, not their source. While the use of the royal prerogative for national security reasons is considered outside the scope of the courts, most
483:
1 KB 223). It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their
303:
As regards Her
Majesty's Home Civil Service ... the Minister for the Civil Service may from time to time make regulations or give instructions ... for controlling the conduct of the service, and providing for the classification of all persons employed therein and ... the conditions of service of all
494:
I have described the third head as "procedural impropriety" rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also
441:
held the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review, just like statutory instruments. However, on national security grounds, the action of restricting the trade union was justified. Lords Fraser, Scarman and
Diplock all believed that the issue of national security was outside the remit of the
551:
But I do not think that that right of challenge can be unqualified. It must, I think, depend upon the subject matter of the prerogative power which is exercised. Many examples were given during the argument of prerogative powers which as at present advised I do not think could properly be made the
520:
But fascinating as it is to explore this mainstream of our legal history, to do so in connection with the present appeal has an air of unreality. To speak today of the acts of the sovereign as "irresistible and absolute" when modern constitutional convention requires that all such acts are done by
502:
My Lords, that a decision of which the ultimate source of power to make it is not a statute but the common law (whether or not the common law is for this purpose given the label of "the prerogative") may be the subject of judicial review on the ground of illegality is, I think, established by the
465:
My Lords, I see no reason why simply because a decision-making power is derived from a common law and not a statutory source, it should for that reason only be immune from judicial review. Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by
239:
held that exercises of the royal prerogative were subject to judicial review, but there were exceptions, including for matters of national security. This was a significant break from the previous law, which held that prerogative powers were not in any way subject to judicial review. The GCHQ case
452:
My Lords, I intend no discourtesy to counsel when I say that, intellectual interest apart, in answering the question of law raised in this appeal, I have derived little practical assistance from learned and esoteric analyses of the precise legal nature, boundaries and historical origin of "the
323:
The decision to ban workers at GCHQ from trade union membership had been taken after the meeting of a select group of ministers and the prime minister, rather than the full
Cabinet. That is not unusual, even in relation to high-profile decisions: a decision was similarly taken to authorise the
567:
In the exertion therefore of those prerogatives, which the law has given him, the King is irresistible and absolute, according to the forms of the constitution. And yet if the consequence of that exertion be manifestly to the grievance or dishonour of the kingdom, the
Parliament will call his
473:
By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those
490:
AC 14 of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by the decision-maker. "Irrationality" by now can stand upon its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review.
317:
the conditions of service under which civil servants are employed as members of the staff of the
Government Communications Headquarters shall be varied so as to provide that such civil servants shall not be members of any trade union other than a departmental staff association approved by
544:(1980), p.177. Maitland was in so stating a greater prophet than even he could have foreseen for it is our legal history which has enabled the present generation to shape the development of our administrative law by building upon but unhampered by our legal history.
484:
training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the court's exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in
578:
The courts have traditionally been unwilling to subject prerogative powers to judicial review. Judges were willing to state only whether or not powers existed, not whether they had been used appropriately. They therefore applied only the first of the
377:
and May LJ held that judicial review could not be used to challenge the use of the royal prerogative. They decided that as the determination of national security issues is an executive function, it would be inappropriate for the courts to intervene.
495:
failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of
461:
1953 (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953) (Cmd. 8969)) to which the United Kingdom is a party it has now become usual in statutes to refer to the latter as "national security."
598:". A convention would not have usually been litigable, and it was necessary for the court to demonstrate that it was in the present case: such a rule had been established in respect of Cabinet conventions in
646:
539:
himself: "the only direct utility of legal history (I say nothing of its thrilling interest) lies in the lesson that each generation has an enormous power of shaping its own law": see Richard A. Cosgrove,
658:
527:
521:
the sovereign on the advice of and will be carried out by the sovereign's ministers currently in power is surely to hamper the continual development of our administrative law by harking back to what
503:
cases cited by my noble and learned friend, Lord Roskill, and this extends to cases where the field of law to which the decision relates is national security, as the decision of this House itself in
479:
580:
1637:
1665:
1574:
628:
be reviewed arises the terms of that order; or whether reviewability may also extend, in an appropriate case, to a direct exercise of a prerogative power.
1304:
486:
1967:
604:. Although the court ruled against the union, it was accepted that the invariable practice of the executive formed a basis for legitimate expectation.
2101:
2096:
2116:
1962:
1510:
1283:
262:
to the British government and armed forces. Prior to 1983, its existence was not acknowledged although it openly recruited graduates. After a
517:
In short the orthodox view was at that time that the remedy for abuse of the prerogative lay in the political and not in the judicial field.
2131:
1623:
409:
1718:
1655:
1650:
1645:
1227:
312:
The directive issued to the Director of GCHQ by the prime minister (initially as a verbal instruction, then communicated by letter) was:
1454:
1362:
2086:
1779:
970:
835:
755:
651:
438:
236:
39:
292:
204:
189:
108:
80:
2013:
1972:
255:
212:
607:
The case also shows that national security remains a political issue, not a legal one: it is not to be determined by a court.
2091:
1265:
1256:
1161:
1138:
1060:
531:
AC 1, 29. It is, I hope, not out of place in this connection to quote a letter written in 1896 by the great legal historian
2018:
1683:
1678:
1673:
1248:
600:
366:
232:
357:
held that the employees of GCHQ had a right to consultation, and that the lack of consultation made the decision invalid.
1294:
458:
1813:
1710:
1693:
1119:
1008:
505:
181:
1354:
470:; but to dispose of the instant case the three already well-established heads that I have mentioned will suffice.
1618:
1406:
1220:
216:
128:
402:
619:
445:
296:
275:
193:
123:
118:
969: at para. 423H–424A, ICR 14, IRLR 28, 3 WLR 1174, 3 All ER 935, AC 374 (22 November 1984),
2111:
1988:
1877:
1459:
1416:
113:
525:
once called, albeit in a different context, the clanking of mediaeval chains of the ghosts of the past: see
270:'s government decided a year later that employees would not be allowed to join a trade union for reasons of
1768:
75:
1449:
467:
2126:
2121:
2060:
1797:
1607:
1590:
1569:
1549:
1544:
1515:
1486:
1466:
1438:
1421:
1411:
1213:
834: at para. 417-418, ICR 14, IRLR 28, 3 WLR 1174, 3 All ER 935, AC 374 (22 November 1984),
477:
By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" (
1861:
1837:
1526:
532:
370:
240:
established that judicial review depends on the nature of the government's powers, not their source.
2081:
1944:
1821:
1702:
1595:
1476:
1433:
1384:
1379:
849:
499:. But the instant case is not concerned with the proceedings of an administrative tribunal at all.
1893:
1559:
1396:
966:
1845:
1531:
1491:
831:
595:
220:
152:
1149:
1520:
350:
228:
1885:
1869:
1853:
1497:
1023:
259:
249:
699:
667:
UKSC 41 the Supreme Court quashed an Order in Council that sought to prorogue Parliament.
8:
1901:
1579:
556:
I can see no reason why those instructions should not be the subject of judicial review.
328:
in 1956, and the same procedure was used in the decision to transfer the ability to set
1917:
1909:
1829:
1098:
1044:
584:
287:
That was done through powers contained in the Civil Service Order in Council 1982, an
1742:
1236:
1194:
1157:
1134:
1115:
1102:
1090:
1056:
1032:
1018:
1004:
271:
267:
208:
1184:
1082:
751:
288:
200:
173:
90:
67:
2038:
1538:
1344:
1131:
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction
754:, ICR 14, IRLR 28, 3 WLR 1174, 3 All ER 935, AC 374 (22 November 1984),
496:
333:
1805:
1761:
1755:
1736:
1600:
1367:
1288:
633:
374:
354:
263:
235:
held national security concerns meant that judicial review was impossible. The
224:
50:
Council of Civil Service Unions & Others v Minister for the Civil Service
1086:
2106:
2075:
1749:
1584:
1443:
1299:
1198:
1094:
1036:
647:
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)
594:
The GCHQ case also confirmed that non-legal conventions might be subject to "
474:
persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the state is exercisable.
329:
185:
618:
The Council of Civil Service Unions, with others, submitted the case to the
2023:
1334:
1314:
938:
1189:
1172:
2008:
1339:
1329:
1070:
1048:
536:
325:
2045:
1936:
1426:
522:
280:
215:(GCHQ) from joining any trade union for national security reasons. The
1205:
1612:
1374:
480:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
963:
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
828:
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
748:
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
170:
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
583:: whether the use was illegal. Constitutional scholars such as
28:
591:
of its other uses are now judicially reviewable in some form.
939:"COUNCIL OF CIVIL SERVICE UNIONS et al v. THE UNITED KINGDOM"
1073:(1985). "Prerogative. Judicial Review. National Security".
157:
417:
219:
claimed in judicial review that the order defeated their
413:
70:, AC 374, 3 WLR 1174, ICR 14, 3 All ER 935, IRLR 28
1305:
Vote of no confidence in the Callaghan ministry (1979)
307:— Article 4, Civil Service Order in Council 1982
258:(GCHQ) is a British intelligence agency that provides
223:
of being able to collectively bargain for fair wages.
874:
The Rule of Law; Albert Venn Dicey; Victorian Jurist
542:
The Rule of Law; Albert Venn Dicey; Victorian Jurist
266:, the organisation became known to the public, and
1017:
848:
803:
22:CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case)
2073:
1284:Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act (1960)
1055:(15 ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Longman.
931:
885:
883:
587:would have considered that to be appropriate.
1221:
1112:British government: a reader in policy making
1021:; Drabble, Richard (2010). "GCHQ revisited".
694:
692:
412:. Consider transferring direct quotations to
1043:
925:
767:
743:
741:
720:
610:It summarises the scope of judicial review.
199:In 1984, by issuing a directive based on an
1719:Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World
1177:International Journal of Constitutional Law
880:
1228:
1214:
689:
27:
1188:
1147:
1133:(5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
738:
683:
1128:
913:
901:
889:
871:
852:United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
528:United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd
1183:(1). Oxford University Press: 146–155.
613:
568:advisers to a just and severe account.
2102:United Kingdom constitutional case law
2097:United Kingdom administrative case law
2074:
1081:(1). Cambridge University Press: 1–3.
998:
779:
664:Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland
622:, however it was deemed inadmissible.
256:Government Communications Headquarters
231:held the instruction was invalid. The
213:Government Communications Headquarters
2117:Labour disputes in the United Kingdom
1235:
1209:
1170:
1109:
1069:
1053:Constitutional and Administrative Law
982:
815:
791:
732:
638:CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service
403:too many or overly lengthy quotations
1249:Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
937:
601:Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd
385:
2132:United Kingdom trade union case law
1417:"The lady's not for turning" (1980)
459:European Convention on Human Rights
13:
360:
81:ECLI:CE:ECHR:1987:0120DEC001160385
14:
2143:
513:Lord Roskill said the following:
506:Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate
381:
182:United Kingdom constitutional law
16:United Kingdom constitutional law
2055:
2054:
1809:(1984–1996 & 2020 TV series)
1575:Broadcasting restrictions (1988)
1313:
1257:Leader of the Conservative Party
804:Blom-Cooper & Drabble (2010)
390:
2087:1984 in United Kingdom case law
1460:"White flags over Port Stanley"
992:
976:
956:
919:
907:
895:
865:
841:
821:
809:
660:R (Miller) v The Prime Minister
560:
217:Council of Civil Service Unions
797:
785:
773:
761:
726:
714:
677:
620:European Court of Human Rights
299:was the only available route.
276:Minister for the Civil Service
1:
872:Cosgrove, Richard A. (1980).
670:
344:
2092:British trade unions history
1968:Palace of Westminster (2007)
1769:We have become a grandmother
1580:"Sermon on the Mound" (1988)
7:
1527:Local Government Act (1985)
1003:(2nd ed.). Routledge.
468:European Economic Community
339:
10:
2148:
1624:Resignation Honours (1990)
1596:Community Charge (1989–90)
1434:Irish hunger strike (1981)
1031:(1). Sweet & Maxwell.
926:Bradley & Ewing (2011)
768:Bradley & Ewing (2011)
721:Bradley & Ewing (2011)
247:
109:Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
2032:
2001:
1981:
1955:
1928:
1862:The Long Walk to Finchley
1838:Jeffrey Archer: The Truth
1787:
1778:
1729:
1692:
1664:
1636:
1558:
1475:
1395:
1353:
1322:
1311:
1276:
1243:
1087:10.1017/S0008197300114278
142:
137:
101:
96:
86:
74:
63:
55:
45:
35:
26:
21:
1822:Thatcher: The Final Days
1703:The Downing Street Years
1511:Miners' strike (1984–85)
1154:A Casebook on Labour Law
1148:McGaughey, Ewan (2019).
1001:Industrial relations law
999:Barrow, Charles (2002).
410:summarize the quotations
243:
211:banned employees of the
1963:London Guildhall (1998)
1894:The Hunt for Tony Blair
1173:"The royal prerogative"
284:by the Prime Minister.
1989:Richard Stone portrait
1846:The Alan Clark Diaries
1532:rate-capping rebellion
1492:Brighton hotel bombing
1300:"Britain Awake" (1976)
1171:Poole, Thomas (2010).
1129:Loveland, Ian (2009).
630:
596:legitimate expectation
570:
558:
511:
321:
310:
221:legitimate expectation
153:freedom of association
1817:(1987–1991 TV series)
1521:Anglo-Irish Agreement
1110:James, Simon (1997).
1075:Cambridge Law Journal
967:[1984] UKHL 9
832:[1984] UKHL 9
752:[1984] UKHL 9
625:
565:
515:
450:
314:
301:
291:, an exercise of the
248:Further information:
174:[1984] UKHL 9
2112:House of Lords cases
1854:Pinochet in Suburbia
1706:(1993 autobiography)
1619:"No. No. No." (1990)
1498:GCHQ trade union ban
1455:Diana Gould exchange
1277:Member of Parliament
854:[1941] AC 1"
614:Further developments
573:— William Blackstone
448:said the following:
260:signals intelligence
250:GCHQ trade union ban
207:, the government of
1902:In Search of La Che
1780:Cultural depictions
1190:10.1093/icon/mop038
1045:Bradley, Anthony W.
278:is a position held
264:spy scandal in 1983
188:case that held the
1830:The Falklands Play
1019:Blom-Cooper, Louis
585:William Blackstone
487:Edwards v Bairstow
2127:Royal prerogative
2122:Margaret Thatcher
2069:
2068:
2014:Death and funeral
1997:
1996:
1814:The New Statesman
1798:Anyone for Denis?
1711:The Path to Power
1666:General elections
1632:
1631:
1237:Margaret Thatcher
1163:978-1-84946-931-9
1150:"8: Trade Unions"
1140:978-0-19-921974-2
1062:978-1-4058-7350-5
861:. 20 August 1940.
435:
434:
293:royal prerogative
272:national security
268:Margaret Thatcher
209:Margaret Thatcher
205:royal prerogative
190:royal prerogative
166:
165:
149:royal prerogative
91:Bailii transcript
2139:
2058:
2057:
1913:(2020 TV series)
1881:(2009 TV serial)
1857:(2006 docudrama)
1849:(2004 TV series)
1785:
1784:
1393:
1392:
1317:
1269:
1260:
1252:
1230:
1223:
1216:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1192:
1167:
1144:
1125:
1106:
1066:
1040:
1014:
986:
980:
974:
960:
954:
953:
951:
949:
935:
929:
923:
917:
911:
905:
899:
893:
887:
878:
877:
869:
863:
862:
856:
845:
839:
825:
819:
813:
807:
801:
795:
789:
783:
777:
771:
765:
759:
745:
736:
730:
724:
718:
712:
711:
709:
707:
696:
687:
684:McGaughey (2019)
681:
640:
581:Wednesbury tests
574:
430:
427:
421:
394:
393:
386:
308:
304:such persons ...
289:Order in Council
201:Order in Council
97:Court membership
59:22 November 1984
31:
19:
18:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2082:1984 in England
2072:
2071:
2070:
2065:
2039:James Callaghan
2028:
1993:
1977:
1973:Grantham (2022)
1951:
1924:
1789:
1774:
1725:
1688:
1660:
1638:Party elections
1628:
1561:
1554:
1539:Westland affair
1478:
1471:
1398:
1391:
1349:
1345:Union democracy
1318:
1309:
1272:
1263:
1255:
1247:
1239:
1234:
1164:
1141:
1122:
1071:Ewing, Keith D.
1063:
1049:Ewing, Keith D.
1011:
995:
990:
989:
981:
977:
961:
957:
947:
945:
936:
932:
924:
920:
914:Loveland (2009)
912:
908:
902:Loveland (2009)
900:
896:
890:Loveland (2009)
888:
881:
870:
866:
847:
846:
842:
826:
822:
814:
810:
802:
798:
790:
786:
778:
774:
766:
762:
746:
739:
731:
727:
719:
715:
705:
703:
700:"GCHQ Post War"
698:
697:
690:
682:
678:
673:
650:, heard at the
642:
632:
616:
576:
572:
563:
497:natural justice
431:
425:
422:
416:or excerpts to
407:
395:
391:
384:
367:Court of Appeal
363:
361:Court of Appeal
347:
342:
334:Bank of England
309:
306:
305:
297:judicial review
252:
246:
233:Court of Appeal
203:made using the
194:judicial review
192:was subject to
162:
146:Judicial review
133:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2145:
2135:
2134:
2129:
2124:
2119:
2114:
2109:
2104:
2099:
2094:
2089:
2084:
2067:
2066:
2064:
2063:
2051:
2050:
2042:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2027:
2026:
2021:
2016:
2011:
2005:
2003:
1999:
1998:
1995:
1994:
1992:
1991:
1985:
1983:
1979:
1978:
1976:
1975:
1970:
1965:
1959:
1957:
1953:
1952:
1950:
1949:
1941:
1932:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1923:
1922:
1914:
1906:
1898:
1897:(2011 episode)
1890:
1882:
1874:
1866:
1858:
1850:
1842:
1841:(2002 TV film)
1834:
1826:
1818:
1810:
1806:Spitting Image
1802:
1801:(1982 TV play)
1793:
1791:
1782:
1776:
1775:
1773:
1772:
1765:
1762:Alfred Roberts
1759:
1756:Carol Thatcher
1753:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1737:Denis Thatcher
1733:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1724:
1723:
1715:
1707:
1698:
1696:
1690:
1689:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1676:
1670:
1668:
1662:
1661:
1659:
1658:
1653:
1648:
1642:
1640:
1634:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1627:
1626:
1621:
1616:
1610:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1601:Poll tax riots
1593:
1588:
1582:
1577:
1572:
1566:
1564:
1556:
1555:
1553:
1552:
1547:
1542:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1524:
1518:
1513:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1495:
1489:
1483:
1481:
1473:
1472:
1470:
1469:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1457:
1452:
1441:
1436:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1403:
1401:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1382:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1368:wets and dries
1359:
1357:
1351:
1350:
1348:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1326:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1312:
1310:
1308:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1295:Shadow Cabinet
1292:
1289:Circular 10/70
1286:
1280:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1271:
1270:
1261:
1253:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1233:
1232:
1225:
1218:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1168:
1162:
1145:
1139:
1126:
1120:
1107:
1067:
1061:
1041:
1015:
1009:
994:
991:
988:
987:
975:
971:House of Lords
955:
930:
918:
906:
894:
879:
876:. p. 177.
864:
840:
836:House of Lords
820:
808:
796:
784:
772:
760:
756:House of Lords
737:
725:
713:
688:
675:
674:
672:
669:
652:House of Lords
634:Lord Brightman
624:
615:
612:
564:
562:
559:
533:F. W. Maitland
439:House of Lords
433:
432:
398:
396:
389:
383:
382:House of Lords
380:
362:
359:
346:
343:
341:
338:
330:interest rates
326:Suez operation
302:
245:
242:
237:House of Lords
164:
163:
161:
160:
155:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:
135:
134:
132:
131:
129:Lord Brightman
126:
121:
116:
111:
105:
103:
102:Judges sitting
99:
98:
94:
93:
88:
84:
83:
78:
72:
71:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
40:House of Lords
37:
33:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2144:
2133:
2130:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2120:
2118:
2115:
2113:
2110:
2108:
2105:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2088:
2085:
2083:
2080:
2079:
2077:
2062:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2043:
2041:
2040:
2035:
2034:
2031:
2025:
2022:
2020:
2017:
2015:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2006:
2004:
2000:
1990:
1987:
1986:
1984:
1980:
1974:
1971:
1969:
1966:
1964:
1961:
1960:
1958:
1954:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1939:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1931:
1927:
1920:
1919:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1907:
1904:
1903:
1899:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1888:
1887:
1886:The Iron Lady
1883:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1864:
1863:
1859:
1856:
1855:
1851:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1840:
1839:
1835:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1803:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1794:
1792:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1777:
1770:
1766:
1763:
1760:
1757:
1754:
1751:
1750:Mark Thatcher
1748:
1744:
1741:
1740:
1738:
1735:
1734:
1732:
1728:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1714:(1995 memoir)
1713:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1697:
1695:
1691:
1685:
1682:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1671:
1669:
1667:
1663:
1657:
1654:
1652:
1649:
1647:
1644:
1643:
1641:
1639:
1635:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1608:Budget (1990)
1606:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1594:
1592:
1591:Budget (1989)
1589:
1586:
1585:Bruges speech
1583:
1581:
1578:
1576:
1573:
1571:
1570:Budget (1988)
1568:
1567:
1565:
1563:
1557:
1551:
1550:Budget (1987)
1548:
1546:
1545:Budget (1986)
1543:
1540:
1537:
1533:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1516:Budget (1985)
1514:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1490:
1488:
1487:Budget (1984)
1485:
1484:
1482:
1480:
1474:
1468:
1467:Budget (1983)
1465:
1461:
1458:
1456:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1445:
1444:Falklands War
1442:
1440:
1439:Budget (1982)
1437:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:Budget (1981)
1420:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1412:Budget (1980)
1410:
1408:
1407:Budget (1979)
1405:
1404:
1402:
1400:
1394:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1358:
1356:
1352:
1346:
1343:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1275:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1231:
1226:
1224:
1219:
1217:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1142:
1136:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1121:0-415-11304-0
1117:
1114:. Routledge.
1113:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1010:1-85941-563-6
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
985:, p. 150
984:
979:
972:
968:
964:
959:
944:
940:
934:
927:
922:
916:, p. 108
915:
910:
904:, p. 101
903:
898:
892:, p. 102
891:
886:
884:
875:
868:
860:
855:
853:
844:
837:
833:
829:
824:
817:
812:
805:
800:
793:
788:
782:, p. 260
781:
780:Barrow (2002)
776:
770:, p. 106
769:
764:
757:
753:
749:
744:
742:
735:, p. 206
734:
729:
723:, p. 261
722:
717:
701:
695:
693:
686:, p. 360
685:
680:
676:
668:
666:
665:
661:
655:
653:
649:
648:
641:
639:
635:
629:
623:
621:
611:
608:
605:
603:
602:
597:
592:
588:
586:
582:
575:
569:
557:
553:
549:
545:
543:
538:
534:
530:
529:
524:
518:
514:
510:
508:
507:
500:
498:
492:
489:
488:
482:
481:
475:
471:
469:
463:
460:
454:
449:
447:
443:
440:
429:
419:
415:
411:
405:
404:
399:This article
397:
388:
387:
379:
376:
372:
368:
358:
356:
352:
337:
335:
331:
327:
320:
319:
313:
300:
298:
294:
290:
285:
283:
282:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
251:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
197:
195:
191:
187:
186:UK labour law
183:
179:
175:
172:
171:
159:
156:
154:
151:
148:
145:
144:
141:
136:
130:
127:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
106:
104:
100:
95:
92:
89:
85:
82:
79:
77:
73:
69:
66:
62:
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
41:
38:
34:
30:
25:
20:
2044:
2037:
2024:Thatchergate
1945:The Audience
1943:
1940:(2010, 2013)
1935:
1916:
1908:
1900:
1892:
1884:
1876:
1868:
1860:
1852:
1844:
1836:
1828:
1820:
1812:
1804:
1796:
1717:
1709:
1701:
1560:3rd ministry
1503:
1477:2nd ministry
1397:1st ministry
1385:2nd–3rd term
1335:Conservatism
1180:
1176:
1153:
1130:
1111:
1078:
1074:
1052:
1028:
1022:
1000:
993:Bibliography
983:Poole (2010)
978:
962:
958:
946:. Retrieved
942:
933:
928:, p. 29
921:
909:
897:
873:
867:
858:
851:
843:
827:
823:
816:Ewing (1985)
811:
806:, p. 19
799:
792:Ewing (1985)
787:
775:
763:
747:
733:James (1997)
728:
716:
704:. Retrieved
679:
663:
659:
656:
645:
643:
637:
631:
626:
617:
609:
606:
599:
593:
589:
577:
571:
566:
561:Significance
554:
550:
546:
541:
526:
519:
516:
512:
504:
501:
493:
485:
478:
476:
472:
464:
455:
451:
446:Lord Diplock
444:
436:
423:
408:Please help
400:
371:Lord Lane CJ
364:
348:
322:
316:
315:
311:
286:
279:
253:
198:
177:
169:
168:
167:
124:Lord Roskill
119:Lord Diplock
114:Lord Scarman
49:
2009:Blatcherism
1921:(2024 film)
1905:(2011 film)
1889:(2011 film)
1873:(2009 film)
1865:(2008 film)
1833:(2002 play)
1825:(1991 film)
1562:(1987–1990)
1479:(1983–1987)
1399:(1979–1983)
1355:Premiership
1340:Free market
1330:Thatcherism
1268:(1959–1992)
1259:(1975–1990)
1251:(1979–1990)
818:, p. 2
794:, p. 1
355:Glidewell J
225:Glidewell J
2076:Categories
2046:John Major
1937:Handbagged
1790:television
1758:(daughter)
1739:(husband)
1427:Gang of 25
1024:Public Law
948:3 February
671:References
523:Lord Atkin
426:April 2019
418:Wikisource
375:Watkins LJ
351:High Court
345:High Court
281:ex officio
229:High Court
87:Transcript
1982:Paintings
1910:The Crown
1878:The Queen
1743:baronetcy
1504:CCSU case
1450:"Rejoice"
1363:Ministers
1199:1474-2640
1103:145714522
1095:0008-1973
1037:0033-3565
414:Wikiquote
401:contains
336:in 1997.
318:yourself.
178:GCHQ case
176:, or the
64:Citations
2061:Category
1870:Margaret
1788:Film and
1771:" (1989)
1764:(father)
1613:Gulf War
1380:1st term
1375:Cold War
1323:Ideology
1266:Finchley
1156:. Hart.
1051:(2011).
706:14 March
340:Judgment
138:Keywords
2049: →
2036:←
2019:Honours
2002:Related
1956:Statues
1500:(1984)
1446:(1982)
1264:MP for
365:In the
349:In the
332:to the
227:in the
180:, is a
56:Decided
2059:
1948:(2013)
1918:Reagan
1730:Family
1722:(2003)
1615:(1990)
1587:(1988)
1541:(1986)
1523:(1985)
1494:(1984)
1291:(1970)
1197:
1160:
1137:
1118:
1101:
1093:
1059:
1035:
1007:
702:. GCHQ
274:. The
68:UKHL 9
1929:Plays
1752:(son)
1694:Books
1099:S2CID
965:
943:HUDOC
830:
750:
537:Dicey
244:Facts
36:Court
2107:GCHQ
1684:1987
1679:1983
1674:1979
1656:1990
1651:1989
1646:1975
1195:ISSN
1158:ISBN
1135:ISBN
1116:ISBN
1091:ISSN
1057:ISBN
1033:ISSN
1029:2010
1005:ISBN
973:(UK)
950:2023
859:ICLR
838:(UK)
758:(UK)
708:2012
662:and
437:The
254:The
184:and
158:GCHQ
76:ECLI
1185:doi
1083:doi
657:In
644:In
535:to
2078::
1193:.
1179:.
1175:.
1152:.
1097:.
1089:.
1079:44
1077:.
1047:;
1027:.
941:.
882:^
857:.
740:^
691:^
636:,
373:,
369:,
353:,
196:.
1767:"
1229:e
1222:t
1215:v
1201:.
1187::
1181:8
1166:.
1143:.
1124:.
1105:.
1085::
1065:.
1039:.
1013:.
952:.
850:"
710:.
428:)
424:(
420:.
406:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
