CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Margaret Thatcher, as Minister for the Civil Service, issued an Order in Council under royal prerogative powers to prevent employees of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence agency, from joining trade unions, citing national security concerns. The Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) challenged this decision through judicial review, arguing that the government’s action violated their legitimate expectation of being consulted, as they had previously been able to join unions and engage in collective bargaining.

Issue: Whether the exercise of the royal prerogative by the government to ban trade union membership at GCHQ was subject to judicial review, and whether it was lawful to prevent GCHQ employees from joining trade unions on grounds of national security.

Held: The House of Lords held that the royal prerogative is subject to judicial review, but there are exceptions, such as matters of national security. While the decision to ban trade union membership was justiciable, it was considered reasonable due to national security concerns. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the government's action was upheld.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Diplock: "[T]here is no reason why... prerogative power should for that reason only be immune from judicial review." He also emphasized that for a decision to be justiciable, it must affect a person by either altering legal rights or obligations, or depriving them of a legitimate expectation they previously enjoyed.

💡 Leveluplaw: The GCHQ case confirmed that exercises of royal prerogative powers can be subject to judicial review if they impact legal rights or legitimate expectations. However, the case also highlighted an important limitation: judicial review is not applicable in areas where national security is involved. This decision marked a significant shift in UK constitutional law, as it made clear that the nature of the government's power, rather than its source, determines whether it is open to review.

Previous
Previous

Case of Proclamations [1610]

Next
Next

M v Home Office [1994]