Facts
- The Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, used prerogative powers to ban employees at the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) from joining trade unions without consultation.
- This decision was justified on the grounds of national security.
- Trade unions representing GCHQ staff challenged the government’s failure to consult prior to implementing the ban, asserting it contravened prior agreements and recognized rights.
Issues
- Whether prerogative powers exercised by the government are subject to judicial review.
- Whether the invocation of national security can exempt the exercise of prerogative powers from judicial scrutiny.
- Whether the government’s failure to consult GCHQ staff, in line with previous practice, rendered the decision unlawful.
Decision
- The House of Lords held that prerogative powers are, in principle, subject to judicial review.
- Prerogative powers may be reviewed by courts unless their subject matter—such as national security, treaties, defense, pardons, honors, dissolving Parliament, or ministerial appointments—places them outside the court’s remit.
- In this case, evidence concerning security threats justified the lack of consultation, and the national security context exempted the decision from review.
- The government’s action was therefore not unlawful given the overriding consideration of national security.
Legal Principles
- Prerogative powers, historically immune from legal challenge, are reviewable by courts except when concerns fall under specified exemptions, such as national security.
- Judicial review of prerogative powers ensures government actions comply with legal norms but recognizes limits where sensitive state interests are at stake.
- Courts must defer to the executive in evaluating threats to national security, maintaining a balance between legal accountability and public welfare.
- The case clarified separation of powers and influenced subsequent administrative law decisions involving prerogative authority.
Conclusion
The decision in CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service marked a fundamental shift by subjecting many prerogative powers to judicial review, while delineating areas, such as national security, where deference to executive judgment is required. The case remains a landmark in modern administrative law.