Prerogative powers - Relationship with legislation and const...

Learning Outcomes

This article examines the relationship between prerogative powers and Acts of Parliament within the UK’s uncodified constitutional framework, as well as the significant influence of constitutional conventions on the operation and limitation of those prerogatives. Candidates will gain robust understanding of major themes, including:

• The origins, residual nature, and development of prerogative powers as discretionary authorities of the Crown, with ongoing significance for the UK executive
• The legal and constitutional hierarchy establishing parliamentary sovereignty: when statutes override, curtail, place into abeyance, abolish, or revive the prerogative, and how courts determine the interplay between statute and prerogative
• Mechanisms by which parliament enacts, reviews, or displaces prerogative powers, alongside the ways in which prerogative and statutory powers sometimes coexist
• The procedural and substantive principles guiding the courts’ supervision of the prerogative, including grounds for judicial review, the doctrine of justiciability, and limits to court intervention
• The non-legal yet politically enforceable impact of constitutional conventions, including practical and high-interest conventions such as the Sewel Convention, ministerial responsibility, cabinet collective responsibility, and how conventions interact with legal rules and the prerogative
• The complexities and developments in public law arising from the frequent recalibration of prerogative powers, with focus on the role of conventions, statute, and the changing scrutiny of government action

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the relationship between prerogative powers, legislation, and constitutional conventions, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• the origins, definition, and scope of prerogative powers within the UK constitutional framework
• the principle that statute prevails over prerogative, including abeyance, removal, or revival by legislation
• the legal relationship and distinctions between statutory and prerogative powers, including when parliament removes, curtails, or re-enacts the prerogative
• the distinction between legal rules and non-legal conventions, and the precise role of constitutional conventions in shaping government action
• how and to what extent the courts supervise, confine, or review the exercise of prerogative powers, and in what circumstances prerogative decisions are justiciable
• the ongoing interplay between prerogative, legislation, and constitutional conventions, with reference to recent statutes and contemporary examples
• procedural and practical principles governing operation of the prerogative within Parliament, the executive, and the judiciary—including competition, compatibility, and abeyance

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. What happens if a statute and a prerogative power cover the same subject matter?
2. Can constitutional conventions be enforced by the courts?
3. Give an example of a prerogative power that has been revived or removed by statute.
4. In what circumstances can the courts review the exercise of prerogative powers?

Introduction

Prerogative powers are significant for understanding both the flexibility and the limitations present in the UK’s uncodified constitution. They are the residual legal authorities of the Crown—those that remain in existence unless and until abrogated, amended, or regulated by Parliament. In contemporary governance, they are almost entirely exercised by government ministers on the Crown’s behalf; scope persists in key areas such as the conduct of foreign affairs (e.g., treaty-making and recognition of states), national security, the deployment of armed forces, the issue of passports, and the conferment of honours.

While still rooted in historic common law, the exercise and boundaries of prerogative powers are shaped—and often sharply limited—by primary legislation and the operation of constitutional conventions. UK constitutional theory and practice require an effective distinction between legal powers (which can be enforced or reviewed in the courts) and non-legal rules or conventions (which guide conduct but rely on political or public enforcement mechanisms).

Key Term: prerogative powers
The discretionary legal powers and privileges remaining in the hands of the Crown, derived from common law, not dependent on statute, and generally exercised by ministers.

The hybridity of law and convention in this area allows for adaptability, but also requires close attention to the mechanisms by which Parliament, courts, and politics control executive action.

The Nature and Scope of Prerogative Powers

Prerogative powers, or the royal prerogative, represent the body of customary executive powers that were originally exercised by the monarch but are now entrusted almost universally to ministers. Their origin lies in the early development of the British state, when the monarch wielded ultimate authority, but over time, with the emergence of a more democratic and parliamentary system, these powers became subordinated to the supremacy and sovereignty of Parliament.

In modern usage, prerogative powers are exercised not as whimsical or personal privileges of the monarch, but as tools of executive government, with legal content and (except where still subject to convention only) subject to judicial determination of their existence, extent, and lawfulness. Examples include:

• Control of foreign affairs (e.g., making and ratifying international treaties, recognition of foreign states and governments, issue and withdrawal of passports)
• National defence (e.g., deployment and organisation of the armed forces)
• Grant of pardons (exercise of mercy)
• Conferral of honours
• Summoning, proroguing, or dissolving Parliament (subject to recent statutory changes)
• Appointment of the Prime Minister and government ministers

Key Term: the crown
In constitutional context, ‘the Crown’ refers to the sovereign acting as the executive government—i.e., ministers exercising the monarch’s legal powers in their official capacity.

The legal and constitutional scope of prerogative powers is now strictly confined to those that have not been superseded, amended, or abolished by statute. Their continued exercise is increasingly shaped by legal precedent and subject, in most cases, to supervision by the courts as the ultimate arbiter of legality, especially where individuals or other public authorities are affected.

It is important to emphasise that while the prerogative is broad in subject matter, it is narrow and residual in operation: any area regulated by statute displaces the relevant prerogative, and exercise of the prerogative contrary to law is unlawful.

The Relationship Between Prerogative Powers and Legislation

Statute Overrides Prerogative

The fundamental principle governing the interface of prerogative and statute is the supremacy of Parliament. Where a prerogative power and a statutory power cover the same area, the statutory provision takes precedence and the prerogative is either placed in abeyance or extinguished—meaning it cannot be exercised as long as the statutory regime is in force.

Key Term: statutory override
The principle that where Parliament has enacted legislation covering an area previously within the prerogative, the statute prevails and suspends or eliminates the prerogative’s operation in that field.

This doctrine was articulated and affirmed in Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508. In that case, the government sought to rely on the prerogative for requisitioning property in wartime so as to sidestep the compensation obligations imposed by a statute. The House of Lords rejected this argument, holding that Parliament’s intention (by enacting a statutory power with provisions for compensation) was to displace the prerogative for the duration of the statute’s application.

This principle acts as a safeguard of both legal certainty and parliamentary supremacy. Parliament’s intention—whether to regulate, abolish, or otherwise control the prerogative—will be deduced from the language of the statute and its context. Courts strictly scrutinise any attempt by the executive to rely on the prerogative where Parliament has legislated in the area.

When Parliament enacts a statutory scheme that is inconsistent or coextensive with the prerogative, the prerogative power is put ‘in abeyance’: it remains in existence but cannot be lawfully exercised except to the extent that any statute leaves a gap or has been repealed.

This doctrine is a direct expression of the UK's understanding of the hierarchy of legal norms: Parliament is legally omnipotent (subject to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty), and its will expressed in statute must always trump residual common law powers, including the prerogative.

Key Term: in abeyance
The status of a prerogative power when its exercise is suspended due to the existence or operation of a statute covering the same ground.

Removal, Curtailment, and Revival of Prerogative Powers by Parliament

Parliament is not limited merely to suspending a prerogative—it can abolish, curtail, amend, or explicitly revive prerogative powers through primary legislation. For example, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 removed the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament and fixed general elections at five-year intervals, effectively ending the prime minister’s discretion in the matter. The subsequent Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 repealed the 2011 Act and stated explicitly that the power of the Crown to dissolve Parliament would again operate as a prerogative “as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never been enacted.”

Key Term: revival of prerogative
The process where a prerogative, previously displaced or put into abeyance by statute, regains effect—typically upon repeal of the relevant statutory restriction and an explicit revival provided by Parliament.

The contingent nature of prerogative power is important: Parliament can at any time displace or revive prerogative authorities, or alter their legal contours, depending upon political or constitutional considerations.

For example, until the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the ratification of international treaties (a prerogative power) was largely beyond parliamentary or judicial control. Now, Parliament enjoys a statutory right to scrutinise and potentially block ratification, effectively diminishing the prerogative’s exclusivity in this area.

Concurrent Operation and Coexistence of Prerogative and Statute

In some circumstances, statutes do not comprehensively “cover the field,” and prerogative powers and statutory powers may coexist, provided no direct inconsistency arises. If a statute leaves part of a subject area unregulated, and the historical prerogative would have applied, the prerogative may be exercised in respect of those residual gaps.

This principle was illustrated in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26. There, the court recognised concurrent statutory and prerogative powers to maintain the peace; the statutory provision at issue (the Police Act 1964) did not expressly or implicitly exclude the relevant prerogative, so both could operate, so long as not exercised inconsistently.

The courts will examine any overlap to determine whether Parliament intended to exclude the prerogative; the presumption is against such exclusion unless expressly or necessarily implied.

It follows that the prerogative remains only so far as is necessary to fill gaps or residual powers not otherwise expressly regulated.

Judicial Supervision and Determination

The judiciary plays an important role in policing the boundary between statute and prerogative. The courts determine whether a prerogative persists in the light of statute, and, if so, the extent and lawfulness of its exercise (subject to justiciability—see below). If a minister purports to use the prerogative contrary to statutory requirements or employs the prerogative to evade statutory limitations, the courts will declare the action unlawful and may grant appropriate remedies (e.g., declaration, prohibition, or judicial review).

Key Term: judicial review of prerogative
The power of the courts to scrutinise, on legal grounds, the existence, extent, and exercise of prerogative powers when they affect individuals, public bodies, or legal rights, ensuring that prerogatives are exercised lawfully and do not undermine statutory regimes.

This was seen most prominently in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513. There, the Home Secretary had sought to operate a new scheme under the prerogative which contradicted a statutory scheme that had been approved by Parliament but was not yet in force. The House of Lords found that using the prerogative to evade or contradict Parliament’s will was improper and unlawful.

The Supreme Court confirmed the principle in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 (“Miller 1”): government could not use the prerogative to effect changes to domestic law or statutory rights—the removal of rights established under the European Communities Act 1972 could only be enacted by Act of Parliament.

Worked Example 1.1

A government minister seeks to requisition property for military use. There is both a statute in force and an existing prerogative power for requisition, but the statute requires payment of compensation, which the minister wishes to avoid by invoking the prerogative.

Answer:
The minister cannot use the prerogative to override or evade the statutory requirement. The statute prevails and the requirement for compensation must be fulfilled.

Worked Example 1.2

Parliament had abolished, by statute, the prerogative to dissolve Parliament at the prime minister’s discretion. It later repeals this Act. What is the legal position regarding the prerogative?

Answer:
The prerogative is revived and again becomes exercisable, since Parliament has removed the statutory limitation and explicitly revived the prerogative authority.

Worked Example 1.3

A statute provides the Home Secretary with power to supply certain equipment to police forces but is silent on use of other types of equipment, previously provided via the prerogative. What is the effect?

Answer:
If the statute does not indicate an intention to regulate the entire subject or cover every mode of supplying equipment, then residual prerogative powers may coexist and be exercised to fill the gaps, as long as the use of the prerogative does not circumvent statutory policy or act inconsistently with Parliament’s intent.

Parliamentary Procedure and the Legislative Process: Structure and Effects

For clarity, the process by which Parliament creates, amends, or repeals laws—including those that alter the prerogative—is subject to the ordinary legislative process, except that certain Bills are subject to particular procedures:

• Public Bills—impacting the general law—may be introduced by government ministers (most commonly) or by private members of Parliament.
• Private Bills—relate to specific individuals, bodies, or localities.
• Hybrid Bills—contain features of both public and private Bills.

Each Bill must pass through several clearly defined stages: first reading (formal introduction), second reading (debate on general principles), committee stage (line-by-line scrutiny and amendment), report stage (further opportunities for amendment), and third reading (final approval), before proceeding to the second chamber and ultimately receiving Royal Assent. The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 further regulate the ability of the House of Lords to delay (but not block) public Bills.

Parliament has demonstrated its supremacy through the ability to enact constitutional statutes that dramatically reshape the legal status of prerogative powers (as in the above example of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and its subsequent repeal in 2022).

The Role and Influence of Constitutional Conventions

Constitutional conventions are the non-legal but politically significant rules, maxims, and practices governing the operation of key governmental and legal powers, especially those that have a basis in the prerogative. Conventions sit alongside statute and case law as a core source of the UK constitution and function primarily as mechanisms of political accountability and adaptation.

Key Term: constitutional convention
A political or practical rule considered binding by those that operate the constitution, but not legally enforceable and not administered by the courts.

Conventions typically develop through consistent political practice and may crystallize into durable rules that are universally acknowledged by the executive, Parliament, or even the judiciary (as an extralegal fact). Their main constitutional functions include:

• Constraining the exercise of prerogative powers to prevent arbitrary or undemocratic action (e.g., the monarch acting only on ministerial advice, not unilaterally)
• Supporting the doctrine of responsible government (e.g., ministerial accountability to Parliament for all exercises of executive power, including the prerogative)
• Ensuring the flexibility and adaptation of constitutional practice to suit changing political standards or social expectations
• Providing guidance where the law is silent or ambiguous, reducing the risks of constitutional crises or deadlock

A central convention governing the prerogative is the requirement that all prerogative powers (except for the few still personally exercised by the monarch) are exercised according to the advice and direction of ministers who are accountable to Parliament. For example, while royal prerogatives include the legal power to appoint a Prime Minister, summoning or dissolving Parliament, or granting royal assent, by convention these acts are undertaken only as advised by elected ministers.

Key Term: ministerial advice convention
The foundational rule that prerogative powers of the Crown are exercised on the advice of responsible ministers rather than at the monarch’s personal discretion.

Key examples of constitutional conventions shaping the exercise of prerogative powers include:

• The monarch grants Royal Assent to all legislation passed by Parliament (refusing assent would, in modern times, create a constitutional crisis)
• The monarch appoints as Prime Minister the person best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons, as advised by ministers, not by personal preference

Ministerial responsibility is another foundational convention—individual ministers are expected to resign for serious failures in their department or for personal misconduct; collectively, the government must command the confidence of the House of Commons, or resign.

• The Sewel Convention: the UK Parliament “will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent” of the devolved parliaments (e.g., the Scottish Parliament)—statutorily recognised but not legally enforceable
• The Salisbury-Addison Convention: the House of Lords will not reject government bills giving effect to a major manifesto commitment of the elected government

Conventions also regulate the interface between Parliament and the executive, and ensure that the government does not – in practice – use prerogative powers to bypass parliamentary scrutiny.

Key Term: political sanction
The non-legal processes or consequences that follow a breach of convention, such as public criticism, loss of office, parliamentary censure, or defeat in a vote of no confidence.

It is important to emphasise that the distinction between law and convention is foundational: the courts do not enforce conventions, even when they acknowledge their existence or political importance (see Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752; R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5). The political sanction that attaches to breach of convention is often sufficient to enforce compliance; however, conventions can sometimes suffer from uncertainty of content or application and may change or dissolve over time.

Worked Example 1.4

The Prime Minister urges the monarch to appoint a minister, despite the monarch's personal opposition.

Answer:
By convention, the monarch acts on ministerial advice, and refusal would provoke a serious political crisis. The convention is politically binding, not legally binding—the courts would not intervene, but the consequences would be political and constitutional.

The Role and Limits of Constitutional Conventions

Conventions are functional: they facilitate adaptability and allow political practices to change independent of the law, enabling change without extensive legal or constitutional overhaul. While essential to the practical operation of government, their flexibility gives rise to potential uncertainty over their existence or application; this is particularly acute where political circumstances or public sentiment are in flux, or where the existence of a relevant precedent is subject to dispute.

The recognized “test” for the existence of a constitutional convention is outlined by Sir Ivor Jennings:

• Are there precedents, i.e., reasonable consistency in past practice?
• Did the actors involved believe they were bound to act in a certain constitutional way?
• Is there a constitutional reason for the practice?

In reality, conventions are only as strong as the political consensus supporting them. Conventions can, and do, fall into disuse or are intentionally set aside; however, longstanding conventions are considered cornerstones of responsible government and their breach can trigger a crisis of confidence or legitimacy.

The courts, including the Supreme Court (see Miller 1), have consistently affirmed that they cannot enforce constitutional conventions. Instead, they “recognise” conventions as political rules, and may refer to conventions when interpreting statutory or common law or as background context. Their function is to support the smooth operation of the constitution, ensuring that legal powers (including the prerogative) do not outpace the principles of accountable and representative government.

Exam Warning
Courts do not enforce constitutional conventions; disputes or breaches are managed via political processes—resignation, censure, or electoral defeat—not through legal action.

Statutory Regulation of Prerogative Powers: Practical Examples

Recent developments in public law and politics have demonstrated Parliament’s capacity to recalibrate or place limits on the executive by either superseding or codifying areas previously covered by prerogative. Prominent statutory interventions include:

• Treaty-making: Once an area of near-absolute executive prerogative, the ratification of most treaties is now regulated by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Act requires notification and affords Parliament the opportunity to examine and block treaty ratification within a specified period—replacing an exclusive use of prerogative with statutory control.
• Dissolution of Parliament: The creation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 put the prime minister’s discretion to dissolve Parliament on a statutory basis, preventing use of the prerogative; the repeal of the Act and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 explicitly revived the crown’s prerogative to dissolve Parliament.
• Use of Armed Forces Abroad: While the legal authority to deploy the armed forces remains a prerogative, a new convention has developed since 2003 that the government will consult Parliament before committing UK forces to significant military action—though in emergencies, the prime minister may act first and seek endorsement afterward.
• Passports and Nationality: The issue and withdrawal of passports remain prerogative, but relevant statutory and administrative law controls exercise. Refusals or withdrawals are subject to judicial review according to the principles of lawfulness, fairness, and proportionality.
• Civil Service: Once governed solely by prerogative, its operations and terms are now regulated primarily by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, demonstrating Parliament’s ability to render areas of prerogative substantially nugatory.

Key Term: revival of prerogative
The legal consequence of repealing a statute that had previously abrogated, supervened, or placed in abeyance a prerogative power, thereby reviving its operation.

Judicial Review of Prerogative Powers

Modern administrative law recognises judicial review as a mechanism for controlling the executive—including the exercise or non-exercise of the prerogative. The doctrine of justiciability determines which prerogative powers courts may review: increasingly, the courts will subject exercises of the prerogative to review if the subject matter has legal and not purely “high policy” content.

Traditionally, areas such as foreign policy, national security, and grant of honours were treated as non-justiciable. However, since the GCHQ case (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374), most prerogative powers are reviewable to the extent that their exercise affects legal rights, duties, or legitimate expectations. Legal constraints include lawfulness, procedural fairness, rationality (the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” standard), and respect for human rights.

The courts determine:

• Whether a claimed prerogative exists and is applicable
• Whether a prerogative has been displaced by statute
• Whether ministerial decisions under prerogative power are undertaken lawfully and rationally
• Where relevant, compatibility of the prerogative’s use with human rights protections under the Human Rights Act 1998

The Supreme Court, in R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 (“Miller 2”), determined that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was justiciable and unlawful where it frustrated the constitutional principle of parliamentary accountability.

Executive acts taken using remaining “core” prerogative powers—such as ratifying treaties, conferring honours, and deploying armed forces—may be subject to judicial review only on limited grounds of legality, and will generally not be reviewed where they concern “high policy” or matters unsuitable for adjudication.

Key Term: judicial review of prerogative
Court examination of the existence, extent, and application of prerogative power, and the lawfulness of its exercise, subject to limitations of justiciability and respect for the separation of powers.

Worked Example 1.5

A person is denied a UK passport—an exercise of the prerogative. The refusal appears arbitrary and no reasons are given. The individual challenges the decision by judicial review.

Answer:
The refusal to issue a passport, though an exercise of prerogative, is reviewable by the courts as to lawfulness, fairness and compliance with administrative law standards. The courts can require reasons to be given and can quash a decision taken without lawful basis, procedural fairness, or proportionality.

Worked Example 1.6

The government commits armed forces to overseas operations without prior consultation with Parliament due to an urgent crisis. Parliament is informed after the fact, but some MPs challenge the action.

Answer:
While the Armed Forces deployment is a prerogative power, the developing convention is that parliamentary approval be sought for major operations; nevertheless, it remains legally non-binding, so there is no enforceable legal obligation. The government may face political criticism or censure, but the courts are unlikely to intervene in the absence of illegality or procedural unfairness.

Interaction of Prerogative Powers and EU Law

Notably, during the period of the United Kingdom’s membership in the EU, Parliament recognised in key constitutional statutes (such as the European Communities Act 1972) that statutory rights and obligations established by Parliament, where inconsistent with government intention, could only be altered by new legislation, not by prerogative instruments or executive action alone. The Supreme Court in Miller 1 confirmed the longstanding principle that prerogative powers cannot be exercised to remove, vary, or frustrate rights arising from statute, let alone those with constitutional significance, such as those imported by the EU Treaties, given effect under the ECA 1972.

Even after EU withdrawal, retained EU law continues to demonstrate the supremacy of Parliament over both executive and historic common law powers: Parliament must act to legislate any variation to retained rights and obligations.

The Parliamentary System: Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Privilege

In considering the authority and limits of the prerogative, it is important to place its operation within the broader context of parliamentary government and the separation of powers. The UK’s parliamentary system requires the executive (government) to be drawn from, and directly accountable to, Parliament. Parliamentary privilege protects the autonomy of Parliament in regulating its internal affairs; in the event of a conflict between the privileges of Parliament and the exercise of the prerogative, parliamentary privilege will prevail.

Furthermore, the doctrine of separation of powers, though not strict in the UK compared with other systems, ensures judicial independence and constrains the influence of the executive. The courts enforce the legal limits of both statute and prerogative, while purely political conduct—such as that governed by convention—remains outside judicial scrutiny.

Influence of International Law and Treaties

Prerogative powers continue to underpin the government’s international legal capacity, such as entering into treaties, recognition of foreign states, and dualist implementation of treaty obligations. However, the government cannot alter domestic law or create or abrogate domestic rights by use of the prerogative alone: Parliament must legislate for such changes, and individuals can seek judicial review where the use of the prerogative oversteps or frustrates statutory intent or legal right.

Remedies and Review Mechanisms

In judicial review of prerogative powers, the courts may grant declaratory relief, mandatory or prohibitory orders, quashing orders, or injunctions, depending on the circumstances and legal ground established. However, public law remedies are always discretionary, and the court must consider whether subject matter and context are justiciable (suitable for legal determination).

Individual applicants must demonstrate standing (a sufficient interest) to pursue judicial review, and will be limited by any statutory exclusion of review or parliamentary privilege.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Prerogative powers are historical legal powers of the Crown, now essentially exercised by ministers rather than the monarch personally, and always subject to legal and constitutional limitations.
• Where statute and prerogative overlap or conflict, the statute is sovereign: Parliament can remove, amend, place in abeyance, or revive prerogative powers through legislation.
• Prerogative powers exist only so far as not replaced, removed, or overridden by statute and may only be exercised to the extent they do not conflict with statutory regime or intent.
• Statute and prerogative can sometimes operate in parallel, but only where there is no conflict; the courts will construe legislative intention carefully before finding a displacement of the prerogative.
• Constitutional conventions, though not law, are significant restraints on the exercise of legal and prerogative powers—especially those requiring that prerogative powers are exercised only on ministerial advice, and that ministers are politically accountable.
• Breach of a constitutional convention is not justiciable in the courts, but political sanctions enforce compliance through loss of office, censure, or public pressure.
• The courts judicially review prerogative powers where the subject matter is justiciable and legal rights or duties are at stake; proceedings focus on the existence, extent, and legality of the prerogative, and remain subject to the separation of powers.
• Statutory reforms—such as those governing treaty ratification, deployment of armed forces, or Parliament’s dissolution—demonstrate the capacity of Parliament to recalibrate or remove prerogative powers, underscoring the hierarchy of statute over the common law and the prerogative.
• The UK’s constitution is deeply reliant on both legal and political rules; conventions, statutes, and common law together ensure responsible, accountable, and lawful government.

Key Terms and Concepts

• prerogative powers
• statutory override
• revival of prerogative
• judicial review of prerogative
• constitutional convention
• ministerial advice convention
• political sanction
• the crown
• in abeyance