Alexander E Hull & Company v McKenna
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1926 |
| Date | 01 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | [Privy Council.] |
| Court | Privy Council |
Capacity -Not an English body exclusively - Body with no location - Imperial Court representing the Empire - Position of the Sovereign - Irish Free State - Prerogative preserved by its Constitution -Practice - Appeals to Judicial Committee -Not of right - When granted - Position of the different Dominions - "Unitary" and "Non-unitary"Dominion - Canada - South Africa -"Dominion status" - Constitutional practice -Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922 (12 Geo. 5, c. 4), s. 1; Sch., Arts. 1, 2 - Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922 (Session 2) (13 Geo. 5, c. 1), s. 1; Sch., Art. 66 - Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922), Sch. I., Art. 66; Sch. II., Arts. 1, 2.
On the hearing of the first petitions from the Irish Free State for liberty to appeal to the Judicial Committee, the Judicial Committee stated the general principles governing such applications, and compared the Dominion status of Canada, Australia, and South Africa with that of the Irish Free State. The Judicial Committee sit in the capacity of Judges; their report is acted on by the Sovereign in full Privy Council, so that proceedings before the Committee are in substance strictly judicial. The Judicial Committee is not an English body in any exclusive sense; it is not a body with any location. The Sovereign is everywhere throughout the Empire in the contemplation of the law. He may as well sit in Dublin, or at Ottawa, or in South Africa, or in Australia, or in India, as in London, and it is only for convenience and because the members of the Privy Council are conveniently in London that the Judicial Committee do sit there. In the Irish Free State the prerogative of the Crown is preserved by Art. 66 of the Constitution, so that it exists there just as it does in Canada, South Africa, India, and throughout the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v The Government of St. Lucia
...Council and as to the Order in Council which implements the Committee's reports are that of Lord Haldane in Alex. Hull & Co. v. M' Kenna [1926] I.R. 402, and that of Lord Sankey, L.C. in British Coal Corporation v. the King [1935] A.C. 500; 51 T.L.R. 508, and after quoting from these statem......
- Commonwealth v Queensland
-
Performing Right Society Ltd v Bray Urban District Council
... ... by the judgment of the Board delivered by Viscount Haldane in Hull v. M'Kenna. F19 ... April 10. The judgment of their Lordships was ... ...
-
Seaga v Harper (No 2)
...the Irish Free State, the Board had been concerned with another question about the Judicial Committee's essential character. In Alexander E Hall & Co v Mackenna [1923] IR 402 Viscount Haldane said at pp 403-4: "The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not an English body in any exclus......
-
No Deliberate Innovators: Mr Justice Murphy and the Australian Constitution
...Bill was drafted; although the "request and consent" procedureoftheStatuteofWestminster1931(U.K.),s. 4was used for additional safety.33[1926] I.R. 402, 403-404.34Menzies,Opecit. 87.35Sawer,Opecit. 1977]NoDeliberate Innovators 467No doubt the issue will arise again. When stripped of its emot......
-
History of Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London
...have to be the case. In Ibralebbe v Thie Queen [1964] AC 900 at 922, it was reported that Lord Haldane in Alex Hull & Co. v M'Kenna [1926] IR 402, 404, stated, in relation to the Privy Council that it is 'not a body, strictly speaking, withh any In the latter part of 2006, the Judicial ......