Talk:R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Northumbria Police Authority

Please expand explanation
I am confused on several points. Why did police group A want to make it harder to get their own supplies? Why did the courts take up the case which seems to be an administrative dispute between police official B and police official C over who signs off on certain requisitions? How did a simple dispute reach a constitutional level debate? Is the perogative to "keep the peace" and has this really never been ruled on before? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) They wanted their chief to have the sign-off, and didn't want the Home Secretary to be going behind their backs.
 * 2) Look up Judicial Review.
 * 3) The dispute was over the use of a constitutional pillar. Seems fairly clear to me how that happened.
 * 4) There is a prerogative to keep the peace, and no, it had never been ruled on before. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. But the Home Secretary still had to get the approval of a police official, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Is the Chief Constable refered to in the facts section a local official, not a national one? This isn't clear. In fact most of the early versions say that the rounds were being issued to a chief constable without the approval of a higher police authority. Which is correct?
 * 3. The dispute was not over a contitutional pillar. It was over who signed off on a requisitions form. I can't see a U.S. court taking up this case on this basis - unless there is more theory and claim then we are bothering to explain here.
 * 4. That is an incredible statement. We seem to quote common law examples in breach of the peace going back to 1361. Also the Queen's peace article seems to show that this was already recognized. What has changed with this new ruling? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, but HMIC is a home office official, not just a police officer. The issue was that the Police Authority felt that by cutting the Chief Constables out of the loop, the Home Secretary was personally exercising policing powers and going over their heads.
 * 3. The dispute was over what was permissible under the Royal Prerogative. It has long been established (going back to 1607) that prerogatives cannot be newly created, and there was no previous mention of "keeping the peace" as a prerogative power. While the dispute itself was minor, the subject of the dispute was highly important. If you want a US example; an executive order allowing the President to create new cabinet posts is "form-filling", but the issue over whether executive orders have the jurisdiction to do such a thing is a constitutional matter.
 * 4. There is a distinction here. There can be laws against breach of the peace and treason, fair enough. The issue here was not one of statute, for example, but one of the Royal Prerogative - the monarch's residual power. It had not been previously recognised that the monarch had the duty to do whatever is necessary to keep the peace (although Parliamentary sovereignty means, of course, that Parliament can do whatever it wants). Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)