R (on the application of Barclay) v Secretary of State for Justice (Attorney General of Jersey and the States of Guernsey intervening)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Neuberger,Lord Mance,Lord Clarke,Lady Hale,Lord Reed |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] UKSC 54 |
| Date | 22 October 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
[2014] UKSC 54
THE SUPREME COURT
Michaelmas Term
On appeal from: [2013] EWHC 1183
Lord Neuberger
Lady Hale
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Reed
and
Appellants
James Eadie QC Ben Hooper (Instructed by Simon Ramsden, Treasury Solicitors)
Advocates to the Court
Hon Michael Beloff QC Ivan Hare (Appointed by David Edmonds, Treasury Solicitors)
Intervener
Sir Jeffery Jowell QC Iain Steele Jason Pobjoy (Instructed by Timothy Le Cocq QC, HM Attorney General, Jersey; Megan Pullum QC, HM Comptroller, Guernsey)
Heard on 30 June 2014
Lady Hale (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Clarke agree)
The principal issue in this appeal concerns the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raises fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey. It also raises questions about the constitutional relationship between the courts and a representative or democratically elected legislature.
The case concerns an Order in Council of 12 October 2011 by which Royal Assent was given to the Reform (Sark) (Amendment) (No 2) Law 2010 ("the 2010 Reform Law") which had been passed by the Chief Pleas, the legislature of Sark. The claimants originally applied to the Administrative Court for the Order to be quashed, and without the Order the Law could not become law. At the outset of the hearing, they modified that claim, to seek only a declaration that the decision of the Committee of the Privy Council which recommended approval of the Law was an unlawful decision, on the ground that, in certain respects, the Law was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Administrative Court granted such a declaration: [2013] EWHC 1183 (Admin). The appellants claim that the Court had no jurisdiction to do so, or, if it had, that that jurisdiction should not have been exercised.
If it was open to the court to make such a declaration, two further issues arise. First, is the correctness of Government legal advice given as to the meaning and effect of an international treaty ever justiciable in the courts of England and Wales as the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Launder [1997] 1 WLR 839 held that it could be? Second, if it is, was the Administrative Court correct to hold that, in one limited respect, the 2010 Reform Law was incompatible with the European Convention? The Supreme Court elected to hear argument from all parties on the jurisdiction issues first. Having done so, we announced that we did not require to hear argument on the two further issues. It follows, as all parties will have understood, that the appeal will be allowed on the principal issue and the declaration made by the Administrative Court set aside.
The claimants in this action, Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, have withdrawn from the proceedings. They have agreed not to enforce the costs order made in their favour in the Administrative Court. The defendants in the action and appellants in this court, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the Privy Council Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, and the Privy Council itself, have agreed not to apply for costs orders against the claimants in any circumstances. Despite the Barclay brothers' withdrawal, it seemed to this court that the constitutional issues raised by the appeal were of such importance that we should have the assistance of advocates to the court, who could put forward such counter-arguments to those of the appellants as appeared to them proper. We are most grateful to the Hon Michael Beloff QC and Mr Ivan Hare for their able assistance. We are also grateful that the Attorney General of Jersey and the States of Guernsey have intervened in this appeal, given that the appeal raises such serious issues about the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands.
This is a "leap-frog" appeal, the Administrative Court having granted a certificate pursuant to section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969. That court did not think it right to decline jurisdiction, in the light of two decisions which are binding both on that court and on the Court of Appeal. In R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61, [2009] 1 AC 453 (" Bancoult (No 2)"), the House of Lords held that the courts of England and Wales did have jurisdiction to rule upon the lawfulness of Orders in Council, made under the Royal prerogative, legislating in respect of a British Overseas Territory. In R (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice [2009] UKSC 9, [2010] 1 AC 464 (" Barclay (No 1)"), the Barclay brothers and a resident of Sark mounted a similar challenge to this against the Reform (Sark) Law 2008 ("the 2008 Reform Law"). It was conceded at all levels in Barclay (No 1) that, in the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Bancoult (No 2), the Order in Council granting Royal Assent to the Law was amenable to judicial review in the courts of England and Wales. The Administrative Court did not think it right to embark upon a process of distinguishing Bancoult (No 2) which had not been considered in Barclay (No 1) (para 46).
The Channel Islands, like the Isle of Man (although it has a rather different history), are not part of the United Kingdom. Nor have they ever been British colonies, or British Overseas Territories as the few remaining colonies are now termed. They are Crown Dependencies, enjoying a unique relationship with the United Kingdom and the rest of the British Commonwealth through the Crown, in the person of the Sovereign.
The constitutional relationship between the Channel Islands, the Crown and the United Kingdom is discussed at length in Chapter 31 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, 1969 – 1973 (the Kilbrandon Commission), 1973, Cmnd 5460. This is now supplemented by the House of Commons Justice Committee's Eighth Report of Session 2009–2010, Crown Dependencies, 2010, HC 56–1; the Government response to that Report, 2010, Cm 7965; the Justice Committee's Tenth Report of Session 2013–2014, Crown Dependencies: developments since 2010, 2014, HC 726; and the Government's response to that Report, 2014, Cm 8837. In none of these is the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales over the institutions of the Channel Islands, or over the acts of the United Kingdom government in relation to the Channel Islands, discussed. Many aspects of the relationship are uncertain and practice is still developing. Nevertheless, some things are clear.
The Channel Islands consist of the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey. The Bailiwick of Guernsey includes the islands of Alderney and Sark, which have their own legislative and executive institutions. Not being part of the United Kingdom, unlike Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Bailiwicks are not represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They are economically self-sufficient. They pay no taxes to the United Kingdom and they receive no contribution from the revenues of the United Kingdom. They were not settled by, or conquered by or ceded to, the United Kingdom as colonies. Their link with the United Kingdom and the rest of the Commonwealth is through the Crown, not in the sense of the ultimate executive authority in the United Kingdom, but in the sense of the person of the Sovereign. The Sovereign's personal representative in each Bailiwick is the Lieutenant Governor.
This link stems from the Norman conquest of England in 1066, when the Duke of Normandy became King of England. The Islands were part of the Duchy of Normandy. King Philippe Auguste of France succeeded in retaking possession of continental Normandy from King John of England in 1204, but was not able permanently to retake the Islands, which remained in the possession of and retained their allegiance to the King of England. The Treaty of Calais of 1360 contained a clause confirming that the King of England shall have and hold all the islands which he "now holds": see Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France v United Kingdom) [1953] ICJ Rep 47, 54. The States of Guernsey told the Kilbrandon Commission that, after the ducal title was surrendered, "the King of England continued to rule the Islands as though he were Duke of Normandy, observing their laws and customs and liberties; and these were later confirmed by the charters of successive sovereigns which secured for them their own judiciaries and freedom from process of English courts and other important privileges of which the Islands were justly proud and which have always been respected" (Cmnd 5460, para 1349).
The Charter granted by Queen Elizabeth I to the people of Guernsey, Alderney and Sark in 1560, for example, granted to the "bailiff and jurats and all other magistrates and officers of justice … full and absolute authority, power and faculty to have the cognisance, jurisdiction, and judgment concerning and touching all and all sorts of pleas, processes, lawsuits, actions, quarrels and causes arising within the islands and maritime places aforesaid" (clause 5). Further, it provided that the islands' authorities and people should "none of them be cited, or summoned, or drawn into any lawsuit, or forced in any manner by any writs or process, issued from any of our courts of the kingdom of England, to appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Routier and Another v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
...the points that the UK conventionally does not legislate for the Channel Islands without their consent (see R (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor [2015] AC 276), and that UK legislation only applies to them if they are specifically mentioned. (This principle would, however, preclude a suggestion th......
-
Opinion of Lord Carloway, The Lord President in the reclaiming motion by Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General
...and its legal accountability to the courts were not mutually exclusive. They could overlap ( R (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor (No 2) [2015] AC 276 at para [57]). The Government had to obey the law as declared by the courts ( Edwards v Cruickshank (1840) 3 D 282 at 306–7, endorsed in R (Banco......
-
Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry Qc Mp And Others Against The Advocate General
...and its legal accountability to the courts were not mutually exclusive. They could overlap (R (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor (No 2) [2015] AC 276 at para [57]). The Government had to obey the law as declared by the courts (Edwards v Cruickshank (1840) 3 D 282 at 306-7, endorsed in R (Bancoult)......
-
McQuillan, Re Application for Judicial Review
...Kingdom (Application No 47916/99) (2003) 37 EHRR CD220, ECtHRR (Barclay) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (No 2) [2014] UKSC 54; [2015] AC 276; [2014] 3 WLR 1142; [2015] 1 All ER 429, SC(E)R (Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence [2011] EWCA Civ 1334; [2012] HRLR 6, CA......