|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
United Kingdom Supreme Court
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Supreme Court >> Barclay & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice & Ors  UKSC 54 (22 October 2014)
Cite as:  UKSC 54,  1 AC 276,  AC 276,  3 WLR 1142,  WLR(D) 446
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [View ICLR summary:  WLR(D) 446] [Buy ICLR report:  3 WLR 1142] [Buy ICLR report:  1 AC 276] [Help]
 UKSC 54
On appeal from:  EWHC 1183 (Admin)
R (on the application of Sir David Barclay and another) (Respondents)
Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor and others (Appellants)
The Attorney General of Jersey and
The States of Guernsey (Interveners)
James Eadie QC
(Instructed by Simon Ramsden, Treasury Solicitors)
|Advocates to the Court
Hon Michael Beloff QC
(Appointed by David Edmonds, Treasury Solicitors)
Sir Jeffery Jowell QC
(Instructed by Timothy Le Cocq QC, HM Attorney General, Jersey; Megan Pullum QC, HM Comptroller, Guernsey)
LADY HALE (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Clarke agree)
The relationship between the Channel Islands, the Crown and the United Kingdom
"The United Kingdom and its dependent territories within Her Majesty's dominions form one realm having one undivided Crown. This general principle is not inconsistent with the further principle that on the grant of a representative legislature, and perhaps even as from the setting up of courts, a legislative council and other such structures of government, Her Majesty's government in a colony is to be regarded as distinct from Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom. To the extent that a dependency has responsible government, the Crown's representative in the dependency acts on the advice of local ministers responsible to the local legislature, but in respect of any British overseas territory or other dependency of the United Kingdom, acts of Her Majesty herself are performed only on the advice of the United Kingdom government."
"as matters now stand, the approach laid down by the then majority of the House of Lords [in Quark Fishing] leads to the conclusion that the decisions of the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and the Privy Council were taken as part of the constitutional machinery of the Bailiwick of Guernsey and of Sark for the approval and enactment of laws in Sark, and that the fact that the decisions were taken by Ministers of the Crown who took into account the international obligations of the United Kingdom is irrelevant. It would be quite wrong for the approach in the Quark case to be revisited on an appeal (particularly with a panel of five) in which it does not arise, and in which it is not argued that the Quark case was wrongly decided and ought to be reconsidered."
Relying on that observation, the Administrative Court in this case stated (para 43) that the Committee were advising Her Majesty in right of Guernsey, rather than in right of the United Kingdom.