A discussion on the maxim "The King can do no wrong" alongwith with case laws
The Maxim: "The King Can Do No Wrong"
Meaning and Origin
The maxim "The King can do no wrong" (Latin: Rex non potest peccare) is a fundamental principle of the traditional English constitutional law. It means that the monarch (or the sovereign) cannot be sued or held legally accountable for actions done in the exercise of their official duties. Historically, this doctrine served to protect the Crown (the state) from lawsuits and maintain the dignity and authority of the monarchy.
Underlying Principles
The sovereign is immune from legal proceedings and cannot be prosecuted or sued.
Acts performed by the sovereign are considered to be acts of the state.
The doctrine reflects the sovereignty and dignity of the monarch, who rules by divine right.
However, the principle does not mean the monarch is morally or politically infallible.
In modern constitutional states, the maxim applies only to the Crown as an institution, and not to the government or ministers, who are accountable under administrative law.
Modern Interpretation
In contemporary constitutional monarchies and republics, this principle has evolved:
The sovereign's personal immunity remains, but government actions must comply with the law.
Administrative law has introduced "Crown immunity" or "Sovereign immunity" which may be waived or limited by statute.
Governments are held responsible for wrongful acts; ministers and officials can be challenged in courts.
The Crown can sue and be sued in many jurisdictions, but often under specific procedural rules.
Detailed Discussion with Case Laws
1. Case: Prohibitions del Roy (1607)
Facts: King James I wanted to personally decide a legal dispute.
Issue: Whether the King can decide cases personally.
Held: The court (Chief Justice Coke) ruled that the King cannot personally adjudicate cases. Justice must be administered by the courts, not by the monarch directly.
Significance: This established the principle that even the King is subject to the law and cannot act arbitrarily, setting limits on royal authority while maintaining the immunity from being sued.
2. Case: The Case of the Proclamations (1611)
Facts: King James I issued proclamations banning certain practices without parliamentary approval.
Issue: Whether the King could make laws by proclamation.
Held: The court ruled that the King cannot change the law or create new offenses by proclamation.
Significance: Reinforced that the King is bound by law and cannot act outside legal authority, but the sovereign’s official acts remain immune from suits.
3. Case: Entick v. Carrington (1765)
Facts: The King's agents (government officials) entered Entick's property without a proper legal warrant.
Issue: Whether agents acting on the King’s authority could commit trespass.
Held: The court held that officials could be held liable for unlawful acts, and the King’s authority does not justify illegal actions.
Significance: Clarified that the King himself is immune, but his agents are accountable if they act unlawfully. The principle protects the Crown institution, not illegal acts by agents.
4. Case: Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (the GCHQ case)
Facts: The UK government banned trade union activities at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) without consultation.
Issue: Whether the prerogative powers exercised by the Crown are subject to judicial review.
Held: The court ruled that the government’s use of prerogative powers can be reviewed by courts, except in areas of national security.
Significance: Showed the limits of the "King can do no wrong" maxim by making the exercise of Crown powers subject to legal scrutiny.
5. Case: Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Facts: The Home Secretary decided not to implement a compensation scheme for firefighters despite parliamentary approval.
Issue: Whether the Secretary of State can ignore statutory duties without legal consequences.
Held: Courts ruled that public authorities must perform statutory duties, even if discretionary powers exist.
Significance: Reflects modern administrative law’s impact, where executive decisions (representing the Crown) are subject to legal controls, limiting sovereign immunity.
Summary Table of Cases and Principles
| Case | Principle Established | Impact on the Maxim |
|---|---|---|
| Prohibitions del Roy (1607) | King cannot decide cases personally | Limits monarch’s direct power but retains immunity |
| The Case of Proclamations (1611) | King cannot legislate by proclamation | Monarch bound by law, but official acts immune |
| Entick v. Carrington (1765) | Agents liable for unlawful acts | Sovereign immunity does not protect illegal acts |
| GCHQ case (1985) | Prerogative powers subject to judicial review (some limits) | Crown powers reviewable, limiting "no wrong" rule |
| Fire Brigades Union (1995) | Statutory duties must be performed; judicial oversight | Administrative actions under Crown subject to law |
Conclusion
The maxim "The King can do no wrong" is a historical principle emphasizing the sovereign’s legal immunity.
In practice, the sovereign cannot be sued or prosecuted for official acts.
However, this immunity does not extend to unlawful actions by the sovereign’s agents or government officials.
Modern constitutional law, through judicial review and administrative law, limits and refines the maxim, ensuring accountability and rule of law.
The principle now functions more as a doctrine of sovereign immunity rather than absolute immunity, reflecting a balance between the dignity of the state and citizens’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments