## Introduction

The separation of powers is about dividing state power so that no single body can act without checks. In the UK, it is not a rigid three-way split. Instead, it works as a practical arrangement: Parliament makes law, the executive carries it out, and the courts resolve disputes and keep the executive within the limits set by Parliament and the law. Seen this way, the doctrine both guards against abuse and supports efficient government.

This guide explains the UK’s functional approach, how it coexists with parliamentary sovereignty, and the roles played by the Human Rights Act 1998, judicial review, and recent reforms such as the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

## What You'll Learn

- Why the UK uses a functional, not rigid, version of the doctrine
- How the doctrine fits with parliamentary sovereignty
- The effect of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 on judicial independence
- How prerogative powers are controlled when statute covers the field
- The Human Rights Act 1998: interpretation under section 3 and declarations under section 4
- Proportionality vs Wednesbury unreasonableness in rights cases
- Judicial review grounds: legality, rationality, procedural fairness, and legitimate expectation
- Key cases: Duport, De Keyser, Prohibitions del Roy, Anderson, Daly, Wednesbury, Sussex Justices, Smith and Grady, Pickin
- Practical steps for exams and practice when assessing separation of powers issues

## Core Concepts

### From strict separation to a functional doctrine

- A strict version would keep legislative, executive, and judicial roles wholly apart. That model does not match modern government, where public bodies often carry mixed functions (for example, regulators making rules, enforcing them, and hearing appeals).
- A functional approach asks: what separation is needed to prevent abuse and to run government well? This reading draws on Montesquieu’s warning about concentrated power and modern scholarship (e.g., Barendt and Barber) that sees the doctrine as a means to practical ends: liberty and workable institutions.
- The UK’s constitution shows many separating features, but they are tailored to context rather than absolute.

### Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence

- Parliamentary sovereignty means Acts of Parliament are the highest form of law. This is not inconsistent with separation of powers if we see separation as the allocation of roles, not equal status.
- Lord Diplock in Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs stated the UK constitution is based on Parliament making the laws and the judiciary interpreting them. The courts’ interpretive and supervisory roles protect both individual rights and Parliament’s intention against executive overreach.
- The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 strengthened structural separation:
  - The Supreme Court was created outside the legislature, with hearings held at Middlesex Guildhall rather than within Parliament.
  - The office of Lord Chancellor was redefined; its judicial functions were removed to avoid mixed roles that could risk independence.
  - Government materials (e.g., A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom) described these changes as giving a formal guarantee of judicial independence.
- Where statute and prerogative overlap, statute prevails (Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd). This control of executive power supports parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law.
- In R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the House of Lords held that ministerial setting of certain sentences breached Article 6 ECHR, confirming the judiciary’s role in decisions requiring judicial qualities.

### The Westminster model and efficient government

- The UK’s system features a close link between the executive and the legislature, as ministers are typically MPs or peers. Critics say this weakens separation; supporters say it aids coordinated law-making.
- The key question is practical: does the structure keep power in check and help institutions carry out their roles? Measures such as the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, section 2, which caps the number of ministers in the Commons, help the House carry out scrutiny and debate without being dominated by office-holders.
- Courts are institutionally suited to adjudication. Prohibitions del Roy (1607) explained that deciding legal disputes requires legal training and cannot be done by the monarch. This is about proper allocation of functions as much as it is about preventing abuse.

### Human Rights Act 1998: duties, interpretation, and remedies

- Section 6 HRA places a duty on public authorities, including courts, to act compatibly with Convention rights.
- Section 3 HRA requires courts to interpret primary and secondary legislation in a way compatible with those rights, so far as possible.
- If compatible interpretation is not possible, the higher courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility under section 4. This does not strike down the statute but creates a strong political incentive to change the law. Parliament often responds, including via remedial orders.
- The HRA shifted the intensity of review in rights cases. In R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the House of Lords applied proportionality, which asks whether a measure pursues a legitimate aim, is suitable, necessary, and strikes a fair balance. This is more structured than Wednesbury unreasonableness from Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp, which sets a high threshold of irrationality.
- The difference is seen in Smith and Grady v United Kingdom in Strasbourg and Daly in the House of Lords: proportionality enables closer judicial scrutiny where rights are at stake.

### Judicial review: legality, rationality, fairness

- Judicial review supervises how public bodies exercise power. The courts do not re-make decisions on their merits; they check that decision-makers stay within legal limits, act reasonably in the public law sense, and follow fair procedures.
- Key grounds:
  - Illegality: misinterpreting the law, acting for an improper purpose, or acting without authority.
  - Irrationality: Wednesbury unreasonableness, now refined by context and, in rights cases, replaced by proportionality.
  - Procedural fairness: duties of consultation, the right to be heard where applicable, and impartial tribunals.
- Legitimate expectation protects fairness where public bodies have made clear promises or established practices.
- Bias must be avoided and must be seen to be avoided (R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy). Transparency and reasoned decisions help ensure accountability.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142

- Context: A dispute about the roles of courts and Parliament in industrial relations.
- What the court said: Lord Diplock affirmed the constitutional roles—Parliament enacts, courts interpret.
- Why it matters: It frames separation as role-based and supports the judiciary’s independent function.

### Attorney General v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508

- Context: The executive sought to rely on the prerogative where a statute also applied.
- What the court said: When Parliament has legislated, the statute governs; the prerogative cannot be used to avoid statutory control.
- Why it matters: It places the executive under law and respects Parliament’s primacy.

### Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 12 Co Rep 63

- Context: The monarch attempted to decide a legal dispute personally.
- What the court said: Only courts with legal training may decide legal questions.
- Why it matters: Confirms a separate judicial role based on institutional competence and fairness.

### R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46

- Context: The Home Secretary set minimum terms for life sentences.
- What the court said: This breached Article 6; sentencing is a judicial task where independence is essential.
- Why it matters: Reinforces the distinct role of the judiciary in decisions affecting liberty.

### R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] UKHL 26

- Context: Prison cell searches impinging on legally privileged correspondence.
- What the court said: Applied proportionality and found the policy unlawful.
- Why it matters: Shows the HRA’s effect on the intensity of review and judicial control of executive measures.

### Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223

- Context: A cinema licensing condition was challenged as unreasonable.
- What the court said: Set the classic test of unreasonableness (irrationality).
- Why it matters: Baseline for rationality review, contrasted with proportionality in rights cases.

### R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256

- Context: Clerk to the justices had a conflict of interest.
- What the court said: Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.
- Why it matters: Anchors procedural fairness and impartiality.

### Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765

- Context: Challenge to the validity of an Act based on alleged procedural defects in Parliament.
- What the court said: Courts will not question proceedings in Parliament (enrolled Bill rule).
- Why it matters: Demonstrates respect for parliamentary sovereignty within a separated system of roles.

## Practical Applications

- When assessing a public law problem:
  - Identify the source of power: statute, prerogative, or common law duty.
  - If a statute applies, read it closely. Where Parliament has covered the field, prerogative cannot override it (De Keyser).
  - Consider the HRA: can section 3 interpretation resolve the issue? If not, is a declaration under section 4 appropriate?
  - Choose the right standard: proportionality in rights cases; Wednesbury or context-sensitive reasonableness otherwise.
  - Test for procedural fairness: notice, opportunity to be heard, absence of bias, and reasons where required.
  - Ask whether a legitimate expectation has arisen and whether fairness requires it to be honoured.
- For institutional design and governance:
  - Avoid role conflicts that could compromise independence (e.g., adjudicators involved in policy-setting on the same issue).
  - Ensure decision-making frameworks record statutory purposes and relevant factors to reduce the risk of illegality.
  - Cap overlap between executive roles and scrutiny functions where possible, echoing the logic behind the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, section 2.
- For litigation strategy:
  - Frame challenges around Parliament’s intention and the limits of delegated power.
  - Use De Keyser where ministers rely on the prerogative despite statutory schemes.
  - In HRA claims, build proportionality analysis with evidence on necessity and less restrictive means.
  - Consider remedies carefully: quashing orders, declarations, and, where relevant, declarations of incompatibility.
- For essays and exams:
  - Avoid saying the UK has “no separation of powers”; explain the functional approach with case law and the CRA 2005.
  - Contrast Wednesbury and proportionality with examples (Wednesbury vs Daly; Smith and Grady).
  - Show how judicial independence sits alongside parliamentary sovereignty (Duport; Pickin).

## Summary Checklist

- Treat separation of powers in the UK as functional and role-based
- Parliament’s statutes take priority over the prerogative (De Keyser)
- Judicial independence is reinforced by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the creation of the Supreme Court
- The HRA adds section 3 interpretation and section 4 declarations; proportionality applies in rights cases
- Judicial review checks legality, rationality, fairness, and legitimate expectations
- Bias must be avoided and seen to be avoided (Sussex Justices)
- Courts respect parliamentary sovereignty (Pickin) while supervising executive action (Daly, Anderson)
- The executive–legislature link is managed with measures that support scrutiny (e.g., Disqualification Act 1975, s 2)

## Quick Reference

| Concept                           | Authority                                          | Key point                                                   |
| --------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------- |
| Role-based separation             | Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142          | Parliament legislates; courts interpret and apply the law   |
| Prerogative vs statute            | AG v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel Ltd [1920] AC 508     | Statute prevails where Parliament has legislated            |
| Judicial independence reforms     | Constitutional Reform Act 2005                     | Supreme Court established; Lord Chancellor’s role redefined |
| Proportionality in rights cases   | R (Daly) v SSHD [2001] UKHL 26                     | Structured test replaces Wednesbury in HRA cases            |
| Wednesbury unreasonableness       | APPH v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223             | High threshold for irrationality outside rights contexts    |
| Bias and fairness                 | R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 | Justice must be seen to be done                             |
| Respect for parliamentary process | Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765      | Courts will not question proceedings in Parliament          |
| Ministerial cap in Commons        | House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 s 2     | Limits number of ministers to support scrutiny by the House |

UK Separation of Powers