(Oxford) Consitutional Law Comprehensive Notes 2025

LAW 399


Executive Powers
Review Exam

Q&A



2024

,1. Which case established the principle that the UK executive cannot
exercise prerogative powers inconsistent with legislation?
A. Attorney General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd
B. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service
C. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
D. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire
Brigades Union
Answer: A. Attorney General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel Ltd
Rationale: This case established that statutory powers supersede
prerogative powers.

2. What is the effect of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 on the
executive's power to dissolve Parliament?
A. It removed the power entirely.
B. It limited the power to situations where a two-thirds majority in the
House of Commons agrees.
C. It has no effect as the power to dissolve Parliament remains a royal
prerogative.
D. It delegated the power to the Prime Minister alone.
Answer: B. It limited the power to situations where a two-thirds
majority in the House of Commons agrees.
Rationale: The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 restricts the executive's
power to dissolve Parliament without the consent of a two-thirds majority
in the House of Commons.

3. In which case was it decided that the exercise of prerogative powers is
subject to judicial review?
A. Entick v. Carrington
B. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service
C. R (on the application of Miller) v. The Prime Minister
D. Burmah Oil Co v. Lord Advocate
Answer: B. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil
Service
Rationale: This case confirmed that the exercise of prerogative powers is
subject to judicial review, particularly when it affects individual rights.

4. Which principle was affirmed in the case of R (Miller) v. Secretary of
State for Exiting the European Union regarding the executive's power to

,trigger Article 50?
A. The executive can trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval.
B. The executive must obtain a simple majority in Parliament to trigger
Article 50.
C. The executive requires an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50.
D. The executive's power to trigger Article 50 is not justiciable.
Answer: C. The executive requires an Act of Parliament to trigger
Article 50.
Rationale: The Supreme Court held that an Act of Parliament was
required to authorize the government to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on
European Union.

5. What was the significance of the R (on the application of Evans) v.
Attorney General case in relation to executive powers?
A. It established the 'accountability principle' in the exercise of
executive powers.
B. It confirmed the executive's power to veto judicial decisions.
C. It highlighted the limits of the executive's power to withhold
information.
D. It reinforced the executive's power to issue binding directives to the
judiciary.
Answer: C. It highlighted the limits of the executive's power to withhold
information.
Rationale: The Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General's use of
the executive veto to prevent the release of Prince Charles'
correspondence was unlawful.

6. In the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte
Fire Brigades Union, what was the court's stance on the use of prerogative
powers to change a statutory scheme?
A. The court held that prerogative powers could be used to amend any
statutory scheme.
B. The court found that prerogative powers could not be used to change
a statutory scheme without Parliament's consent.
C. The court decided that prerogative powers were not applicable as the
statutory scheme was already comprehensive.
D. The court ruled that the use of prerogative powers was a political
question and not justiciable.

, Answer: B. The court found that prerogative powers could not be used
to change a statutory scheme without Parliament's consent.
Rationale: The House of Lords held that the government could not use
prerogative powers to introduce a new compensation scheme that was
inconsistent with the scheme established by Parliament.

7. What was the outcome of the case A v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department regarding the executive's power to detain without trial?
A. The executive's power to detain without trial was upheld.
B. The executive's power to detain without trial was found to be limited
by habeas corpus.
C. The executive's power to detain without trial was ruled incompatible
with the European Convention on Human Rights.
D. The executive's power to detain without trial was deemed an absolute
prerogative.
Answer: C. The executive's power to detain without trial was ruled
incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Rationale: The House of Lords ruled that the indefinite detention of
foreign nationals under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

8. In Entick v. Carrington, what principle regarding executive powers was
established?
A. The executive has inherent powers to search and seize property.
B. The executive's actions are not subject to judicial scrutiny.
C. The executive must have legal authority for any action that infringes
upon property rights.
D. The executive can delegate its powers without statutory authority.
Answer: C. The executive must have legal authority for any action that
infringes upon property rights.
Rationale: The case established the principle that the executive cannot
intrude on private property without explicit legal authority.

9. How did the Supreme Court's decision in R (on the application of
Miller) v. The Prime Minister impact the executive's power to prorogue
Parliament?
A. It affirmed the executive's absolute power to prorogue Parliament.
B. It limited the executive's power to prorogue Parliament to specific