"The Royal Prerogative remains a significant source of constitutional law which is largely immune from scrutiny by the courts." - agree or disagree?

... "The Royal Prerogative remains a significant source of constitutional law which is largely immune from scrutiny by the courts." The question here is, do we agree with the view that the Royal Prerogative is immune from scrutiny by the courts, and whether it remains a significant source of constitutional law. In addressing this view, the first point to consider is the definitional controversy of the term, 'royal prerogative' and its origin, then consider its nature, modern position and its significance within the UK Constitution, and finally, whether or not the royal prerogative is immune from scrutiny by the courts. Under the UK Constitution, all actions of government are undertaken in the name of the Crown. Historically, the term, 'royal prerogative' has been applied to those special rights and privileges, which the King had as a feudal lord. There are two schools of thought on the definitional controversy of the term. Blackstone advanced the

want to read more? →