Misplaced Pages

#5994

79-588: There are two principal types of order in council: orders in council whereby the King-in-Council exercises the royal prerogative , and orders in council made in accordance with an act of Parliament . In the United Kingdom, orders are formally made by the monarch with the advice of the Privy Council ( King-in-Council or Queen-in-Council ). In Canada, federal orders in council are made in

158-407: A "last resort option". Category 1 and 2 responders are organisations defined in the act as having responsibilities for carrying out the legislation. Each responder has an emergency planning officer (sometimes called a civil protection officer , civil contingencies officer , resilience officer , or risk manager ) who is usually responsible for ensuring their organisation is in compliance with

237-434: A Community Risk Register and to publish this register. Risks in this context are those that could result in a major emergency. This Community Risk Register is the first step in the emergency planning process; it ensures that the plans that are developed are proportionate to the risk. The act is divided into three parts: Both Part 1 and Part 2 provide definitions of an emergency for the purposes of their respective elements of

316-516: A cause for concern. Statewatch 's Tony Bunyan was more critical of the Act; he said that the changes made to it were "limited concessions" which "in no way change[d] the fundamental objections" to it, that it would give "truly draconian" powers to the government and to state agencies, and that it was "Britain's Patriot Act " which could, "at a stroke", replace democracy with totalitarianism. The Conservatives ' then-Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said

395-599: A conspiracy to subvert democracy, based on the modern state's capacity to collect and cross-refer personal information. The afterword to the novel asserts that the Act "enables the Prime Minister, a minister, or the Government Chief Whip to dismantle democracy and the Rule of Law overnight [...] on the mere conviction that an emergency is about to take place, and there is no sanction against that person if

474-752: A country in which they could be legally owned. Orders in Council were controversially used in 2004 to overturn a court ruling in the United Kingdom that held that the exile of the Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was unlawful. Initially, the High Court in 2006 held that these Orders in Council were unlawful: "The suggestion that a minister can, through the means of an order in council, exile

553-658: A no-deal Brexit was never realised since a Brexit deal was formalised on 17 October 2019 and signed on 24 January 2020. The government considered making use of the Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic , but ultimately took the view that "there was time to pass conventional legislation [the Coronavirus Act 2020 ], which allowed for prior Parliamentary scrutiny to the measures being introduced ... and, therefore, [the Civil Contingencies Act's] use

632-528: A number of years and they were not deemed able to cope in the event of domestic threats to services such as the fuel protests of 2000 or natural threats like the mass flooding in 2000 and the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 . Further urgency was caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in America, with concerns being raised over the adequacy of existing emergency planning to deal with

711-579: A representative assembly (or once the governor has been instructed to call one), the royal authority is limited to the familiar prerogatives; without the assembly's consent the Crown could not raise taxation nor change the law. Several of the colonies of the British West Indies thus became "settled colonies", and reverted to "crown colony" status only by Act of Parliament in the nineteenth century. In August 2009, Michael Misick , first Premier of

790-562: A role in an emergency such as electric companies (non-emergency services are defined as category 2 responders under the act). The second part of the act provides that temporary emergency regulations are normally made through Order in Council or by a Minister of the Crown if arranging for an Order in Council would not be possible without serious delay. Such regulations are limited in duration to 30 days, unless Parliament votes to extend this period before it expires. The only primary legislation which may not be amended by emergency regulations

869-473: A sheriff under summary procedure), create an offence that is punishable by more than three months' imprisonment, or alter procedure in relation to criminal proceedings. There was an attempt by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers to add a number of other key constitutional laws to the exemption list during the bill stage, but this ended up being defeated in the House of Commons. The peers tried to protect

SECTION 10

#1732765888006

948-479: A similar attack should it happen in the United Kingdom. In the wake of these events, the Deputy Prime Minister , John Prescott , announced a formal review into emergency planning arrangements. The review included a public consultation exercise, which generally supported the government's conclusion that existing legislation was no longer adequate and that new legislation was required. A draft bill

1027-533: A whole population from a British Overseas Territory and claim that he is doing so for the ' peace, order and good government ' of the territory is to us repugnant." The UK government's first appeal failed, with the Court of Appeal holding that the decision had been unlawfully taken by a government minister "acting without any constraint". However, the government successfully appealed to the House of Lords , which overturned

1106-540: Is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognized in common law (and sometimes in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy) as belonging to the sovereign , and which have become widely vested in the government. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out. In most constitutional monarchies , prerogatives can be abolished by Parliament under its legislative authority. In

1185-643: Is a crucial corollary and foundation to the concept of the judicial power; and its distinct and separate nature from the executive power possessed by the Crown itself, or its ministers. In most cases, the Monarch exercises the prerogative powers only on the advice of the Government of the day, either directly or through the Privy Council . Generally, the Crown retains all the power of the state in an overseas territory (or 'dependent territory' from 1983 to 2002 or 'Crown colony' before that), even if in practice it

1264-656: Is incumbent upon the King: Civil Contingencies Act 2004 The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c. 36) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that makes provision about civil contingencies. It also replaces former civil defence and emergency powers legislation of the 20th century. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 repeals the Civil Defence Act 1948 and the Civil Defence Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 . Part 1 of

1343-634: Is largely set out in Part III of the Constitution Act, 1867 , particularly section 9. As foreign affairs are a matter of royal prerogative, the power to declare war and deploy the armed forces belongs to the Crown, though only in its federal Cabinet (the federal government ), as outlined in sections 9 and 15 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Neither legislation nor any other type of parliamentary approval, beyond budgetary matters,

1422-565: Is merely another form of statutory instrument (in the UK, regulated by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 ), albeit subject to more formalities than a simple statutory instrument. Like all statutory instruments, they may simply be required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, or they may be annulled in pursuance of a resolution of either the lower house ( House of Commons in the UK and Canada or House of Representatives in

1501-404: Is not directly exercised. Thus the royal prerogative is in theory an unlimited, arbitrary authority. In British overseas territories however, each inhabited territory has a constitution by which the territory is governed locally. The absoluteness of the royal prerogative in the colonies was however defeated in the case of Campbell v. Hall in 1774. This case decided that once a colony gained

1580-550: Is now well documented that Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King seriously considered acting to protect the Soviet-Canadian military alliance against Nazi Germany by silencing Kirkconnell with an Order-in-Council. An Order in Council made by the Brian Mulroney government on 21 November 1988 created Amex Bank of Canada, a Canadian banking subsidiary of American Express , although federal banking policy at

1659-633: Is pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:" Section 20(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 allows the King in Council to exercise a measure of legislative power in the event of an emergency. Other matters dealt with by statutory Orders in Council include the closure of burial grounds under the Burial Act 1853 , approval of statutes made by Oxford or Cambridge colleges under

SECTION 20

#1732765888006

1738-510: Is required for such actions, though the Cabinet has on occasion consulted parliament before engaging Canada or extending Canada's involvement in a conflict. Additionally, the federal Crown may ratify treaties. Again, the endorsement of Parliament is not necessary for these agreements to have force in an international sense, but the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures must pass statutes in order for them to have domestic effect, under

1817-533: Is the Human Rights Act 1998 and part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act itself; however, said regulations cannot be used to introduce military conscription or prohibit industrial action, nor can they be used to create an offence other than as described in Section 22(3)(i) of the Act, create an offence other than one which is triable before a magistrates' court only (or, if the regulations concern Scotland,

1896-452: The 2020 Nova Scotia attacks . The order immediately nullified the existing registrations of ownership for all the weapons it affected, making it illegal for owners to possess, use, transport, or sell them except in a few limited circumstances. A second Order in Council was simultaneously passed declaring an amnesty period until April 30, 2022, in which time owners of newly-prohibited firearms could have them deactivated, destroyed, or exported to

1975-620: The Cabinet , who are accountable to Parliament (and exclusively so, except in matters of the Royal Family) since at least the time of William IV . Typically, in liberal democracies that are constitutional monarchies as well as nation states , such as Denmark , Norway , and Sweden , the royal prerogative serves in practice as a prescribed ceremonial function of the state power . Today, prerogative powers fall into two main categories: Some key areas of government are carried out by

2054-535: The Caribbean Territories (Abolition of Death Penalty for Murder) Order 1991 . Within the United Kingdom itself, court decisions can be formally overruled only by an act of Parliament or by the decision of a higher court on appeal. In the rest of the Commonwealth they are used to carry out any decisions made by the cabinet and the executive that would not need to be approved by Parliament . It

2133-682: The Commonwealth realms , this draws on the constitutional statutes at the time of the Glorious Revolution , when William III and Mary II were invited to take the throne. In the United Kingdom , the remaining powers of the royal prerogative are devolved to the head of the government, which, for more than two centuries, has been the Prime Minister ; the benefits, equally, such as ratification of treaties and mineral rights in all gold and silver ores, vest in (belong to)

2212-664: The Federal Court , Federal Court of Appeal , and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada did not find in favour of either Khadr, nor Kamel. The royal prerogative in Canada extends also to the granting of honours, as explained by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Black v. Chrétien (regarding Conrad Black 's entitlement to an appointment to the House of Lords while a Canadian citizen). Other royal prerogatives, such as

2291-624: The Scottish Parliament in certain circumstances in the same way as they would have been laid before the Westminster Parliament. From 2007, legislation put before the Welsh Assembly is enacted through Orders in Council after following the affirmative resolution procedure. An Order in Council of this type usually has the following form: "His Majesty, in pursuance of [relevant section of primary legislation],

2370-581: The Senedd (Welsh Parliament; Welsh : Senedd Cymru ) in 2020, at the same time gaining the competence to pass Acts of Senedd Cymru , assent to which is given by letters patent without requiring the involvement of the Privy Council. For most of the period from 1972 to 2007, much Northern Ireland legislation was made by order in Council as part of direct rule . This was done under the various Northern Ireland Acts 1974 to 2000, and not by virtue of

2449-531: The Turks and Caicos Islands , a British Overseas Territory , resigned under charges of corruption and abuse of power. In order to restore the rule of law, the UK government took direct control of the government of the territory, under an Order in Council of 18 March 2009, which suspended and amended parts of the Islands' constitution, and vacated all the offices of ministers and the House of Assembly. This action

Order in Council - Misplaced Pages Continue

2528-631: The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923 , and the appointment of HM Inspectors of Education, Children's Services and Skills under the Education and Inspections Act 2006 . Under the Government of Wales Act 2006 , royal assent to Measures of the National Assembly for Wales was given by Order in Council, but this is not done by statutory instrument but in a form similar to that of a prerogative order. The National Assembly became

2607-463: The governor-general of Australia for military affairs and is defined by the Constitution of Australia . The constitution of a Commonwealth realm may also sharply limit the prerogative. In some cases, governmental acts which would normally require royal prerogative may be enacted through other means in the constitution, or through a legislative act in a Commonwealth realm, such as was seen in

2686-422: The Act as part of Operation Yellowhammer if existing legislation proved insufficient to cover any essential contingency measures necessitated by a no-deal Brexit . Outlets such as The Times and Sky News went so far as to label the potential implementation of the Act a plan for martial law . British government departments insisted that existing legislation would be sufficient and there were no plans to use

2765-438: The Act at Section 1 and Section 19 respectively; both sections define an emergency as something that "threatens serious damage" to human welfare, the environment, or national security. A draft version of the Act allowed emergency powers to be triggered merely by an event threatening "political, administrative, or economic stability", but this was replaced by the tighter "serious damage" definition following criticism. Part 1 of

2844-473: The Act was "necessary" and "seriously overdue" but worried that its definition of an emergency was still too wide and believed that Parliament needed a say on ministers' use of its powers, while the Liberal Democrats ' then-spokesman Tom Brake said that the modified Act was better but concerns remained and that more funding for emergency planning was needed; Brake was also critical of what he called

2923-485: The Act. Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that the Act "remain[ed] on the statute book" but was not "the focus of [the Government's] attention", and Cabinet Secretary Mark Sedwill also said that the government did not expect to use emergency powers to manage a no-deal Brexit. In September 2019, following the passage of the so-called Benn Act which compelled Prime Minister Boris Johnson to seek an extension to

3002-571: The Benn Act until after 31 October; while Major did not specifically refer to the Civil Contingencies Act, it was believed that any attempt to use Orders of Council as suggested would likely utilise provisions of the Act. The government said that it was not planning to use the Act, while experts such as Jolyon Maugham and Professor Mark Elliott of the University of Cambridge did not believe that any attempt to use it would actually succeed. In

3081-669: The Brexit withdrawal date if the House of Commons did not give its consent to either a withdrawal agreement or a no-deal Brexit by 19 October 2019, and following Johnson's verbal insistence on having the United Kingdom leave the European Union by the original date of 31 October 2019, the Civil Contingencies Act was speculated to be one of several options that Johnson could use to circumvent the Benn Act. Both Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable and Labour Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer accused Johnson of deliberately talking about

3160-528: The High Court and Court of Appeal decisions ( R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) ). The Law Lords decided that the validity of an order in council made under the prerogative legislating for a colony was amenable to judicial review. Also, it was not for the courts to substitute their judgement for that of the Secretary of State as to what was conducive to

3239-466: The United Kingdom, where a previous act of parliament dictated the conditions in which an early election could be called, which was a purely Royal Prerogative prior to its passage. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 , Title II The Crown , Article 62, delineates the powers of the king, while Title IV Government and Administration , Article 99, defines the king's role in government. Title VI Judicial Power , Article 117, Articles 122 through 124, outlines

Order in Council - Misplaced Pages Continue

3318-614: The United Kingdom. Previous legislation, which was enacted during or after the Second World War , provided for civil protection solely in terms of "civil defence", which was defined as "measures, other than actual combat, for affording defence against a hostile attack by a foreign power". The act also broadens the number of local bodies which have duties in the event of an emergency; previous legislation only related to local authorities, police authorities and certain fire authorities. Neither strand had seen any significant amendments in

3397-534: The act and sharing information with other responders. The usual way of checking compliance is by regularly testing plans by reviews or exercises. Category 1 responders are known as core responders; they include the usual "blue-light" emergency services, as well as others: Category 2 responders are key co-operating responders that act in support of the category 1 responders. Category 2 responders are mostly utility companies and transport organisations: The following orders have been made under sections 34(1) and (3): In

3476-407: The act establishes a new and broad definition of "emergency". The definition includes war or attack by a foreign power, which were defined as emergencies under previous legislation, as well as terrorism which poses a threat of serious damage to the security of the United Kingdom and events which threaten serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom or to the environment of a place in

3555-624: The act places a legal obligation upon emergency services and local authorities (defined as "category 1 responders" under the act) to assess the risk of, plan, and exercise for emergencies, as well as undertaking business continuity management. Category 1 responders are also responsible for warning and informing the public in relation to emergencies. Finally, local authorities are required to provide business continuity advice to local businesses. It also places legal obligations for increased co-operation and information sharing between different emergency services and also to non-emergency services that might have

3634-444: The context of a draft version of the Act, specifically after the "serious damage" definition of an emergency and other alterations had been introduced, Liberty 's Shami Chakrabarti said that the government had responded to most of her group's concerns about the Act and there was "cause to welcome it", but noted that provisions allowing the declaration of a state of emergency in the case of disruption to communications networks remained

3713-413: The division of powers set out in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 . Proposed treaties have also occasionally been presented to parliament for debate before ratification. Members of Parliament have tabled bills seeking to curtail the use of the royal prerogative in foreign affairs by legislating a greater role for parliament, as have Senate standing committees, from time to time, called for

3792-481: The event, no attempt to circumvent the Benn Act through the Civil Contingencies Act or through other means ever materialised; Johnson ultimately complied with the Benn Act and formally requested the president of the European Council for an extension to the Brexit withdrawal date on 19 October 2019. Likewise, the possibility of the Civil Contingencies Act being used in response to the potential consequences of

3871-432: The following laws from emergency regulation: The government of the day, for its part, claimed not to foresee any event in which usage of the Act would affect laws of constitutional importance. Section 21 of the Act describes the conditions that would permit emergency regulations to be made; these conditions have been consistently called a "triple lock" test by the media and by the government and as recently as 2020

3950-601: The government won its appeal in the House of Lords against the previous rulings. The House decided by a three-to-two majority that the Order in Council was a lawful exercise of authority. In their speeches, the Law Lords admitted the government of the day was morally wrong to force out some 2,000 residents of the Chagos Archipelago, a British Crown colony, to make way for a US air base in the 1960s. Nevertheless,

4029-437: The government summarised the test as follows: A 2022 post-implementation review made a similar summary, but stated the third requirement as "The legislation is appropriate and proportionate"; no such requirement for appropriateness and proportionality is mentioned in Section 21 itself, but it does appear in Section 23. To date, the provisions of Part 2 have never been activated, with Cabinet Office guidance describing it as

SECTION 50

#1732765888006

4108-694: The government was returned to full local administration after the November 2012 elections . In the case of the Chagos Archipelago , in 2000, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that a local ordinance made by the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory exiling the islanders was unlawful, a decision which was accepted by the British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook . That Order

4187-593: The government's "trust me" attitude over the Act. According to Clive Walker and James Broderick's commentary on the Act, published two years after its enactment: The Government’s handling of risks and emergencies in recent years has failed to inspire public confidence. In a range of crises, from the Foot and Mouth outbreak through to the grounds for war in Iraq, official predictions or capabilities have been found wanting. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 tenders reassurance by

4266-433: The government's decisions. Apart from acts of Parliament, orders in council are the main method by which the government implements decisions that need legal force. An order in council made under the royal prerogative does not depend on any statute for its authority, although an act of Parliament may change this. This type has become less common with the passage of time, as statutes encroach on areas that used to form part of

4345-409: The government. In Britain, prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch acting without an observed requirement for parliamentary consent (after its empowerment in certain matters following Magna Carta ). Since the accession of the House of Hanover , these powers have been exercised, with minor exceptions in economically unimportant sectors, on the advice of the prime minister or

4424-510: The internment of aliens of "enemy nationality". Between 1914 and 1920, 8,579 "enemy aliens" were detained in internment camps. During the Second World War , the Soviet newspaper Trud accused poet and university professor Watson Kirkconnell , who was known to be both a Ukrainophile and a publicist of human rights abuses under Stalinism , of being "the Führer of Canadian Fascism ". It

4503-417: The king's role in the country's independent judiciary . However, by constitutional convention established by Juan Carlos I , the king exercises his prerogatives having solicited government advice while maintaining a politically non-partisan and independent monarchy. Receiving government advice does not necessarily bind the monarch into executing the advice, except where prescribed by the constitution. It

4582-418: The majority could not find legal fault in the Order. In Canada, the royal prerogative is, for the most part, the same as that in the United Kingdom, as constrained by constitutional convention, although its exercise is usually through the federal governor general in the Privy Council of Canada , or the provincial lieutenant governors in the provincial executive councils . The royal prerogative in Canada

4661-692: The name of the Governor General by the King's Privy Council for Canada ; provincial orders-in-council are of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council by the provincial Executive Council . In other places in name of the governor by the executive council ( Governor-in-Council , Governor-General-in-Council , etc.). In New Zealand, the orders in council, undertaken by the Executive Council , are required to give effect to

4740-464: The other realms) or the upper house ( House of Lords in the UK or Senate in other realms) ('negative resolution procedure'), or require to be approved by a resolution of either or, exceptionally, both houses ('affirmative resolution procedure'). That said, the use of Orders in Council has been extended more recently, as the Scotland Act 1998 provides that draft Orders in Council may be laid before

4819-631: The peace, order and good government of the BIOT. The orders were not Wednesbury unreasonable on the facts, given the considerations of security and cost of resettlement. Finally, none of the orders was open to challenge in the British courts on the ground of repugnancy to any fundamental principle relating to the rights of abode of the Chagossians in the Chagos Islands . Royal prerogative Philosophers Works The royal prerogative

SECTION 60

#1732765888006

4898-541: The power is a matter of the common law of England , making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. Nevertheless, certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use. The royal prerogative is not constitutionally unlimited. In the Case of Proclamations (1611) during the reign of King James VI/I , English common law courts judges emphatically asserted that they possessed

4977-405: The powers are invoked wrongly". Peter Hitchens made a similar assessment of the Act having the potential "to turn Britain into a dictatorship overnight, if politicians can find an excuse to activate it." There were two occasions in 2019, both in the context of Brexit , that caused some renewed attention to be drawn to the Act. In January 2019 it was claimed that the government would make use of

5056-461: The prerogative of mercy, also exist in the Canadian context, although largely supplanted for criminal matters by statutory provisions. In the other Commonwealth realms , the royal prerogative can be or is specifically mandated to be exercised by the monarch's representative, the governor-general. In the case of Australia, the royal prerogative, although resides in the monarch, it is exercisable by

5135-415: The promise of systemic planning and activity in civil resilience, though defence lies beyond its scope. The wide-ranging powers in the Act have the capability of delivering on the promise. But, as shall be revealed in this book, efforts will be hampered because the legislation is hesitant and uneven. A more critical view of the Act is taken by Henry Porter in his 2009 novel The Dying Light , which describes

5214-422: The prospect of civil unrest in the event of a blocked Brexit in order to engineer circumstances that would permit him to use the Civil Contingencies Act; former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said that to use the Act in this manner would be a "constitutional outrage". Similarly, former Prime Minister and Conservative leader John Major said that he "feared" that Johnson would use an Order of Council to nullify

5293-417: The remaining portion of the Crown's original authority, and it is therefore ... the name for the residue of discretionary power left at any moment in the hands of the Crown, whether such power be in fact exercised by the King himself or by his Ministers. The scope of the royal prerogative is difficult to determine due to the uncodified nature of the constitution . It is clear that the existence and extent of

5372-410: The right to determine the limits of the royal prerogative. Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which brought co-monarchs King William III and Queen Mary II to power, this interpretation of there being a separate and distinct power of the judiciary has not been challenged by the Crown . It has been accepted that it is emphatically the province of the court(s) to say what the law is, or means. This

5451-467: The royal prerogative, but its usage is falling as functions are progressively made statutory. In the Kingdom of England (up to 1707), the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1800), and the United Kingdom (since 1801), the royal prerogative was, has been, and is one of the central features of the realm 's governance. Constitutional theorist A. V. Dicey defines the scope of prerogative powers as: ...

5530-445: The royal prerogative. Matters which still fall within the royal prerogative and hence are regulated by (prerogative) orders in council include the prorogation of Parliament, royal charters, and the governance of British Overseas Territories . British Orders in Council may occasionally be used to effectively reverse court decisions or enforce British law applicable to British Overseas Territories without involving Parliament such as

5609-545: The royal prerogative. The use of orders in Council during direct rule is classified as "primary legislation" and not "subordinate legislation" according to section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – subordinate legislation continued to be fulfilled by statutory rules . After the British Empire entered World War I on the Allied side, an Order in Council was made in Canada for the registration and in certain cases for

5688-661: The same. The issuance of passports also remains within the royal prerogative in Canada. The terms for the issuing of passports by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Crown are set out in the Canadian Passport Order, issued by the Governor General-in-Council. The Canadian government has used the royal prerogative on two occasions to deny a passport to a Canadian citizen, Abdurahman Khadr and Fateh Kamel . Lawsuits filed at

5767-515: The time of his application, national security was not included as a ground for refusal in the Canadian Passport Order , which was since amended to include the ground. In July 2017, the government of Canada used an Order in Council to strip ex-Nazi interpreter Helmut Oberlander of his Canadian citizenship. On May 1, 2020, an Order in Council was used to declare over 1,500 models of firearm to be prohibited weapons, in response to

5846-591: The time would not ordinarily have permitted such an establishment by a foreign company. In July 2004 and August 2006, Orders in Council were used to deny a passport to Abdurahman Khadr , a member of the Khadr family who had previously been held in detention by the United States at Guantanamo Bay , on the grounds of national security. The first was overturned on judicial review by the Federal Court as, at

5925-455: Was legislation passed under authority given by the royal prerogative, not an exercise of the prerogative itself, and was overturned as being beyond the powers given. After this decision, the British government issued an Order in Council , a primary exercise of the royal prerogative, to achieve the same objective. This Order was also ruled unlawful by the High Court , a ruling upheld in the Court of Appeal . However, on Wednesday, 22 October 2008,

6004-497: Was long thought that prerogative orders, being primary legislation, were not subject to judicial review . This was reversed in the 1985 case Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service , which, however, allowed for some exceptions, such as national security. A given prerogative order therefore may or may not be subject to judicial review, depending on its nature. In this second case, an order in council

6083-578: Was not an exercise of the royal prerogative, as it was made under "the West Indies Act 1962 and of all other powers enabling Her to do so", but did vest wide discretionary legislative and executive powers in Her Majesty 's governor, who as in all British Overseas Territories, acts on the instructions of the UK government, not the monarch. A new constitution was promulgated in October 2012 and

6162-588: Was not necessary or appropriate". When assessing Parliamentary scrutiny of the government's response to the pandemic, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee was "not convinced" by the government's arguments for not using the Civil Contingencies Act and believed "there was a potential role for the [Act] in providing a 'stop-gap' for more detailed scrutiny of the Coronavirus Bill to take place". While it called on

6241-588: Was scrutinised in detail by the Joint Committee on the Draft Civil Contingencies Bill, which was very influential in shaping the legislation though several of its proposals (notably creation of a new agency) were rejected. The act guides and authorises the creation of a Local Resilience Forum to consider such matters within an existing police force boundary and requires responders to undertake risk assessments, maintain them in

#5994