Separation of powers in the UK
🧠 What is Separation of Powers?
In theory, the doctrine of separation of powers divides government authority into three branches:
Legislature – makes laws (Parliament)
Executive – enforces laws (Government/Ministers)
Judiciary – interprets and applies laws (Courts)
Unlike the U.S., the UK does not have a written constitution, and its system is based on parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional conventions, not strict separation. However, functional separation still exists and has evolved significantly, especially since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
🔑 Key Principles of UK Separation of Powers:
Overlap exists, especially between Parliament and Executive (since Ministers are MPs).
The Judiciary is increasingly independent, especially after the creation of the UK Supreme Court in 2009.
Courts cannot strike down primary legislation, but they can check executive power.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Separation of Powers in the UK
Let’s examine 6+ major cases that reveal how the doctrine works in real life.
1. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (Miller I, 2017)
🔹 Facts:
Government (executive) planned to trigger Article 50 (Brexit) using royal prerogative, without Parliament’s approval.
🔹 Issue:
Could the executive act alone in starting Brexit?
🔹 Held:
No – triggering Article 50 would remove rights granted by an Act of Parliament (the European Communities Act 1972), so Parliament must authorize it.
🔹 Significance:
Courts enforced Parliament’s supremacy.
Reinforced limits on executive prerogative powers.
Courts acting as check on executive overreach.
2. R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (Miller II, 2019)
🔹 Facts:
Boris Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks during a key Brexit period.
🔹 Issue:
Was that advice justiciable, and did it violate constitutional principles?
🔹 Held:
Yes – the prorogation was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating parliamentary scrutiny of the executive.
🔹 Significance:
Major case showing judicial check on executive discretion.
Affirmed the principle that even prerogative powers are subject to legal limits.
Strong reinforcement of separation between judiciary and executive.
3. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
🔹 Facts:
Home Secretary used prerogative power to bring in a non-statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme, even though Parliament had passed legislation for a statutory scheme that hadn’t yet been implemented.
🔹 Held:
The executive undermined the will of Parliament by refusing to implement the statute.
🔹 Significance:
Judiciary limited executive power when it conflicted with Parliament’s legislative role.
Reinforces legislative supremacy and checks on executive discretion.
4. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson (1997)
🔹 Facts:
Two boys convicted of murder as children; the Home Secretary set their minimum sentence, not a court.
🔹 Issue:
Could an executive figure (a politician) decide the length of a sentence?
🔹 Held:
No – that’s a judicial function. The Home Secretary’s actions violated separation of powers.
🔹 Significance:
Shows that sentencing is strictly judicial, not political.
Strong separation between judiciary and executive in criminal justice.
5. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Belmarsh Case, 2004)
🔹 Facts:
Under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, foreign nationals suspected of terrorism could be detained indefinitely without trial.
🔹 Held:
Law was incompatible with human rights (Article 5 ECHR) – the detention was discriminatory and disproportionate.
🔹 Significance:
Showed the judiciary resisting executive power in national security.
Reinforced rule of law and human rights as a judicial responsibility.
Judicial independence in the face of politically sensitive issues.
6. M v Home Office (1994)
🔹 Facts:
Home Office ignored a court order to return a deported person to the UK.
🔹 Held:
Court found the Home Secretary in contempt of court.
🔹 Significance:
Executive must obey the courts.
Reinforces judicial authority over the executive.
7. Jackson v Attorney General (2005)
🔹 Facts:
Challenge to the validity of the Hunting Act 2004, which was passed using the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 (bypassing the House of Lords).
🔹 Held:
The Act was valid, but several judges hinted that there may be judicial limits on parliamentary sovereignty in extreme cases.
🔹 Significance:
Shows a growing willingness of the judiciary to question traditional doctrines.
Tension between parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Separation Principle | Court's Role |
|---|---|---|
| Miller I (2017) | Parliament vs. Executive | Upheld Parliament’s supremacy |
| Miller II (2019) | Judicial review of prerogative | Limited executive's control over Parliament |
| Fire Brigades Union (1995) | Statute vs. prerogative | Executive can't undermine Parliament |
| Venables (1997) | Sentencing is judicial | Executive overstepped |
| Belmarsh Case (2004) | Human rights vs. national security | Judicial defence of liberty |
| M v Home Office (1994) | Rule of law | Courts enforce obedience on ministers |
| Jackson (2005) | Parliamentary limits? | Hinted at possible judicial checks on Parliament |
🧠 Final Takeaways
Strict separation doesn’t exist in the UK (e.g., executive is drawn from Parliament).
But functional separation is respected, especially between executive and judiciary.
Courts have become stronger defenders of legality, rights, and limits on executive power, particularly post-Human Rights Act 1998 and Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
Recent years show a judicial willingness to check political overreach, even on sensitive matters like Brexit or anti-terror laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments