Liyanage v The Queen
Legislation directed at particular individuals in pending criminal proceedings was an unconstitutional interference with the judicial power.
Facts
After a failed coup in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1962, the Parliament of Ceylon passed legislation that applied retrospectively to those accused of taking part in the coup. The legislation allowed arrest without warrant, changed the rules of evidence, created new offences with retrospective effect, set minimum sentences and allowed trial without a jury before judges nominated by the Minister of Justice. The accused were convicted and appealed to the Privy Council.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that the legislation was invalid and quashed the convictions. The Constitution of Ceylon, although it did not expressly say so, gave the judicial power exclusively to the judiciary, and it created a separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary. The legislation was directed at particular known individuals in particular pending proceedings, and it was designed to secure their conviction and severe punishment. It amounted to a legislative judgment and an interference with the functions of the judiciary, which the legislature had no power to make. The case shows how written constitutions can protect the separation of powers.
Related cases on separation of powers and parliamentary privilege
- Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271
- Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142
- Harper v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1955] Ch 238
- Hinds v The Queen [1977] AC 195
- Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
- Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321
- R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46, [2003] 1 AC 837
- R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, [2015] AC 657
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
