Talk:Order in Council

Last Paragraph

The last paragraph, anyone know if that's true/untrue/PoV'd up/OK? 68.39.174.39 00:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I rather wondered about it, or at least the particular example given. Within the United Kingdom itself, an Act of Parliament is the usual method of overturning a court case which the Government doesn't like or which produces unfortunate results (e.g. the Family Law Act 1986 providing a solution to the awkward question posed by R. v. Brentwood Superintendant Marriage Registrar; the War Damages Act 1965 overturning Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. v. Lord Advocate). I've not come across it being done with an Order-in-Council before, but I note the example involved the British Indian Ocean Territory, and Orders-in-Council used to be the main way we dealt with colonies as opposed to Acts.

I suppose the claim is possible, in short, but I've no way of verifying it. Perhaps someone who's made some study of the example given? --Killiedaft 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added this sentence, as a counterpoint to the previous sentence "However, most Orders of this sort are usually eventually formalized according to the traditional lawmaking process". Someone later made it into a seperate paragraph, giving it more prominance than I intended.

The primary source is a written statement to parliament from a junior Foreign Office minister which in summary says "we have therefore decided to legislate to prevent it ... on 10 June 2004 Her Majesty made two Orders in Council, the combined effect of which is to restore full immigration control over all the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory ... These two orders restore the legal position to what it had been understood to be before the High Court decision of 3 November 2000.". This is effectively the executive reversing that court decision without parliamentary scrutiny. (NB the Diego Garcia article has a link to this primary source.)

It does seem however that this only occured with a Prerogative Order-in-Council dealing with ex-colonial/commonwealth law, under the traditional prerogative power to pass laws for the "Peace Order and Good Government" of a territory (search for "POGG" in this paper). This is probably not easily done with other kinds of Orders without parliamentary scrutiny. Maybe the sentence I added should be caveated in some way, such as "In some cases Orders can be used to effectively reverse ...".

NB I understand there is another application ongoing for a judicial review of these Orders-in-Council. - Rwendland 22:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That would more or less make sense, that this is only a possibility when overturning judgments relating to colonies/dependent territories/overseas territories/whatever the FCO seems to thing we should call them nowadays. I certainly haven't managed to come across any example of a U.K. court decision being overruled by Order-in-Council. I'll add something to that effect, and you can see what you think? Killiedaft 23:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this now.

On the one hand I think this isn't very central to the article, and if it takes more than a single sentence to cover, it isn't worth the space. Especially as there seems a lot more about OICs that should be explained. Perhaps it should just be dropped.

OTOH the BIOT/Diego Garcia OICs are probably the most controversial OICs in recent times, and the court cases illustrate some important points about OICs. The first court case in 1990 actually struck down an OIC, showing that nowadays the Royal Prerogative isn't without limit even when used outside the context of an Act of Parliament, as it wasn't made to in accord with the traditional powers for "Peace Order and Good Government" of a population.

So I wonder if a fuller discussion of these cases is warranted, focusing more on illustrating the limits to OICs rather than the Diego Garcia expulsions. Do you think it worth me trying to draft a small section on this?

I think your phrase "Within the U.K. itself" should perhaps be re-phrased - the reversed decision was that of the British High Court, and a lot to do with the the motives and actions of British Civil Servants in Whitehall, though the OIC only effected those outside the UK. - Rwendland 14:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't entirely follow the objection to 'Within the U.K...': no court decision which has effect within the U.K. can be overturned except by Act of Parliament. Colonial decisions, on the other hand, can apparently be overturned by Order-in-Council. The colonies are not, and have never been considered a part of the U.K. itself. They're always styled separately. Yes, the English High Court may have jurisdiction over the colonies, but they've never had representation in Parliament in the same way that whole of the U.K. is. It's not just semantics -- in constitutional law there's a clear line between the U.K. and her colonies. There's no such thing as a British High Court, by the way, unless someone has cunningly abolished the High Court of Northern Ireland and the Court of Session and failed to tell us. In Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary is a criminal court.

As to further discussion of the Orders in context of the Diego Garcia judgments, I wouldn't personally be inclined to do too much. I don't think it's ever been in doubt that use of the Prerogative can be controlled by the courts, off the top of my head. I don't believe these cases created a precedent, although I'd have to dig out the administrative law stuff to check, but I seem to remember there have been previous cases on the use of Prerogative Orders, possibly post-World War One. Killiedaft 10:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The government did in fact argue that an Order in Council made for a British Overseas Territory was "immune from all review by the courts whether by the courts in this country or by the court established for BIOT", see para 6 of this 2006 court decision. So there must have been some doubt on this, though the High Court rejected that argument. Rwendland 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Unless I am mistaken, both Order-in-Council and Queen-in-Council refers to the same thing. If that is the case, then we should merge the two articles together. --Hurricane111 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly worthwhile in Queen-in-Council, so a simple redirect might be best.--cj | talk 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. I have redirected for now. Jon.baldwin 21:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The High Court Judge uses both term carefully in para 5 of this 2006 court decision, implying that there is a difference. e.g "The Queen in Council acts upon the advice of a Minister" implying Queen in Council is the action on behalf of the Queen in the Privy Council, rather than the Order created. Rwendland 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only in the UK and commonwealth

This article should be made more international. I got here via the link in this sentence "The Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) was established by a royal decree on 1 November 1944..." on the Royal Norwegian Air Force page. If I didn't know better I might think the Norwegian Air Force was established by the Queen of England! Inge 10:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Remedy

I think the fault here lies with the redirect put on royal decree - it should never have come to this page in the first place, as an order-in-council is a specific type of royal decree that bears relevance only to the UK and other Commonwealth countries. I have therefore changed the redirect of Royal decree to decree, and removed the "worldwide view" tag. Vneiomazza 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Executive orders

Orders-in-council seem so similar to Executive Orders in the American presidential system that I wonder if a "See also" link would be appropriate. The major difference would seemingly be that many of those are never later addressed by ordinary statutory law. Rlquall 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I have removed the following paragraph as Nothern Ireland Assembly is no longer suspended --Drgs100 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whilst the Northern Ireland Assembly remains suspended, much Northern Ireland legislation is made by Order-in-Council. This is done under the various Northern Ireland Acts 1974 to 2000, and not in virtue of the Royal Prerogative.

Chagos Islands

It was used to steal the Chagos Islands from its inhabitants. This happened on June 10, 2004. -See "Stealing a Nation" by John Pilger

Nonsense. Chagos Islands belong to Britain, Britain can't steal from itself. Chagos Islands are not a nation anymore than the Isle of Wight is a nation. They are British territory, and "Stealing a Nation" is nothing more than left wing anti-British propaganda. YourPTR! (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

lacks historical coverage

This article currently seems to be exclusively about the modern situation in which an Order-in-Council is basically an elaborate technicality, but in the past it has been an actual tool used by sovereigns to enact legislation. I came here from George V of the United Kingdom, which said that he changed his Royal House's name to House of Windsor by an Order-in-Council, so was hoping to find some information about what an Order-in-Council in 1917 entailed. --Delirium 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication

How and where are orders-in-council published? Definitive lists of Acts of Parliament and SIs (for recent years) can be found on the internet, but is there any such public availability for orders-in-council. It beggars belief that legislation can be buried in obscurity by not publishing it properly. 79.68.202.189 (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

This whole article should be written way more clearly, but the introduction is especially confusing. Wouldn't it be possible to include something about the notablity of an Order-in-Council (i.e. ability to make law by decree) in the intro? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

European Union and the Royal Prerogative

"This type has become less common with the passage of time, as statutes encroach on areas which used to form part of the Royal Prerogative."

I'm not sure that this is true in the UK. From what I read a few years ago (but did not make a note of at the time, as most EU directives are Treaty obligations -- which bind the UK Government (related to the reason for the Supremacy Clause in the US constitution), but for which no act of Parliament may have been passed -- the use of the Royal Prerogative as a Governmental convenience (to force compliance by non-government actors in the UK without the necessary enabling legislation) has become some what more used in the last 30 years than in the 30 years before that. A Google search on [European Union Royal Prerogative] returns a number of articles on this. PBS (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Canada section

Just noting that OICs are often controversial in Canada and its provinces; usually in the context of avoiding parliamentary debate, since they don't have to be put on the order paper. There are three items currently; there could be hundreds; I'm not going to get into it, other than noting it's not just OICs on major controversies but legions of minor ones. All kinds of governmental restructuring and policy changes are made using them, with little or no parliamentary debate or public recourse and only rarely, if ever, court action to overturn them (you need, for one thing, the Crown's permission to proceed). Some I know of for sure are various OICs reducing provincial parks in BC, or converting them into protected areas (i.e. reducing the level of protection); but that's only one of many possible items to raise.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did someone delete reference to the 2020 nova Scotia attacks as motivations for the most recent order in council? Im putting it back in. 70.74.121.182 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No mention of its use to crush offshore radio of the 1960s

When the Parliament could not quickly silence Radio 390 an Order in Council was made to redraw the coastline in order to extend territorial waters and bring the station under existing UK law. Then the Crown took Radio 390 to court and prosecuted the station successfully under the existing law. Another instance took place when an Order was extended to override the Manx - Isle of Man Parliament in order to silence Radio Caroline North. There are many other examples of the use of these Orders to achieve that which the Parliament cannot achieve. All of this is due to the lack of a written constitution in the name of, by, and for "The People". Someone added in another section of this article that these acts are similar to acts undertaken by the President of the USA. That is sheer nonsense. In the USA citizens and residents have written constitutional rights, but in the UK they have privileges, and there is a big difference! This is a very poor article. 80.192.68.143 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Page move from "Order-in-Council" to "Order in Council"

The rationale I gave when moving this article from Order-in-Council to Order in Council is truncated when viewing the page history. The full text I typed was:

"Order in Council" is the form used in British (and apparently also Canadian) official usage, is how the term is listed in the OED, and is how the term is given in roughly 95% of the first 500 results returned by Google (many of the exceptions being Wikipedia clones)

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Order in Council/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs something specific on Australian practice.Grahamec 08:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order in Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426232549/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-draft-manual.pdf to http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/cabinet-draft-manual.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528160028/http://library.queensu.ca/webdoc/gov/OrdersinCouncil.pdf to http://library.queensu.ca/webdoc/gov/OrdersinCouncil.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus, and in particular, the use of "Council" as a proper noun. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Order in Council → Order in council – Not a proper name. (It refers to a type of legislative instrument that exists in many countries, not a particular piece of legislation.) 156.57.13.133 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• This needs to go to RM, as the "Council" in question in every case is a proper name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose since the Council in the name refers to the Privy Council and is unambiguously a proper noun.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Describes a general process, not any specific order in council. Primergrey (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The Council is, as per Necrothesp, a proper name, a specific Council, even if it's a different specific Council in different countries. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose an 'Order in Council' refers exclusively to bodies known as a Privy Council or Executive Council, both proper nouns. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 16:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, proper noun as stated by other !votes - https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/orders/ Cabayi (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose', definitely a proper name. It is always capitalized in texts. Walrasiad (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.