Facts
- The matter concerned an attempt by the monarch to decide a legal dispute personally rather than allow the ordinary courts to determine it.
- Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke addressed the question, emphasising that justice must be administered by judges trained in the law, operating within established procedures.
- The ruling distinguished between the King’s natural person (susceptible to bias and error) and the enduring legal authority of the Crown, which is exercised through the courts.
- The case is cited as Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 12 Co Rep 64 and 77 ER 1342.
Issues
- Whether the King could personally adjudicate legal disputes instead of leaving them to the common-law courts.
- Whether royal prerogative included a judicial power distinct from that vested in the judiciary.
Decision
- The court held that the King has no authority to determine cases in person; judicial decisions must be rendered by the courts.
- While the King is the fountain of justice, that authority is exercised exclusively through institutions staffed by learned judges.
- Law is a “science” requiring study and practice; natural wisdom, even that of a monarch, is insufficient for its correct application.
- By limiting direct royal intervention, the judgment entrenched the independence of the judiciary and curtailed arbitrary executive power.
Legal Principles
- Separation of powers: executive authority cannot usurp the judicial function.
- Rule of law: legal disputes must be resolved according to settled procedures and precedent, not personal command.
- Doctrine of the King’s two bodies: the impermanent natural body may err, but the timeless legal body acts only through lawful courts.
- Judicial independence: only judges trained in the law may interpret and apply it, ensuring fairness and consistency.
Conclusion
Prohibitions del Roy affirmed that the monarch cannot personally adjudicate legal disputes; the courts alone possess judicial authority. By articulating the King’s two bodies and insisting that law is applied by learned judges, the case laid a foundational stone for judicial independence and the modern separation of powers.