The BBC claimed to be exempt from income tax. It claimed crown immunity as an emanation of the crown. The court had to decide whether the BBC was subject to judicial review.
Held: It is not a statutory creature; it does not exercise statutory functions; it is not in any general way subject to statutory guidance. The traditional view of it is that it does not exercise a governmental function, and is therefore not subject to judicial review.
Counsel claimed for the government the right to grant a monopoly of broadcasting. LJ Diplock replied: ‘It is 350 years and a civil war too late for the Queen’s courts to broaden the prerogative. The limits within which the executive government may impose obligations or restraints upon citizens of the United Kingdom without any statutory authority are now well settled and incapable of extension. In particular, as respects monopolies the Crown’s claim to a general right to the monopoly of any activity was denied and circumscribed by the Statute of Monopolies, 1623. Today, save in so far as the power is preserved by the Statute of Monopolies, or created by other statutes, the executive government has no constitutional right either itself to exercise through its agents or to confer upon other persons a monopoly of any form of activity.’
and ‘The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’
As to whether a statute was binding on the Crown: ‘Since laws are made by rulers of the subjects, a general expression in a statute such as ‘any person’ descriptive of those on whom the statute imposes obligations or restraints is not to be read as including the ruler himself . . The modern rule of construction of statutes is that the Crown, which today personifies the executive Government of the country and is also a party to all legislation, is not bound by a statute which imposes obligations or restraints on persons or in respect of property unless the statute says so expressly or by necessary implication.’
Willmer LJ, Diplock LJ, Danckwerts LJ
[1965] Ch 32 CA, [1964] EWCA Civ 2, [1964] 41 TC 471, (1964) 43 ATC 38, [1964] 1 All ER 923, [1964] 2 WLR 1071, [1964] TR 45, [1964] RVR 579, [1964] 10 RRC 239
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v British Broadcasting Corporation, ex parte Referendum Party; Regina v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Referendum Party Admn 24-Apr-1997
The Referendum Party challenged the allocation to it of less time for election broadcasts. Under the existing agreements, having fielded over 50 candidates, they were allocated only five minutes.
Held: Neither the inclusion of past electoral . .
Cited – Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and others PatC 17-Feb-2005
A design for sunglasses was challenged for prior publication. However the law in England differed from that apparently imposed from Europe as to the existence of a 12 month period of grace before applying for registration.
Held: Instruments . .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Dictum adopted – Revenue and Customs, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The City of Liverpool Admn 21-May-2014
The Coroner, conducting an investigation into a person’s death, issued notices under para 1(2) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, requiring the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to provide occupational information concerning the . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice Admn 5-Mar-2015
The serving prisoner said that new general restrictions on smoking in public buildings applied also in prisons. were a breach of his human rights. The only spaces where prisoners were allowed now to smoke were their cells, and he would share cells . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Justice v Black CA 8-Mar-2016
The Secretary of State appealed against a declaration that the provisions prohibiting smoking in pubic places applied in prisons.
Held: The appeal succeeded. . .
Cited – Black, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 19-Dec-2017
The Court was asked whether the Crown is bound by the prohibition of smoking in most enclosed public places and workplaces, contained in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2006.
Held: However reluctantly, the claimant’s appeal was . .
Cited – Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council HL 1989
The House was asked whether the Ministry of Defence was entitled to cone off a section of the A814 road without the permission of the roads authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or the local planning authority under the Town and Country . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Judicial Review, Income Tax
Leading Case
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.181973