|
The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (c. 44) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed, for the first time, civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party. The Act also reasserted the common law doctrine of Crown privilege but by making it, for the first time, justiciable paved the way for the development of the modern law of Public Interest Immunity. The Act received the Royal assent on 31 July 1947 but did not fully come into force until 1 January 1948.〔SI1947/2527, art.1〕 There remain significant differences between Crown proceedings and claims between private parties, especially as to enforcement of judgments. ==Background== Before the Act, the Crown could not be sued in contract. However, as it was seen to be desirable that Crown contractors could obtain redress, they would otherwise be inhibited from taking on such work, so a petition of right came to be used in such situations, especially after the Petitions of Right Act 1860 simplified the process.〔Bradley & Ewing (2003) ''pp''700-701〕 Before the petition could be heard by the courts, it had to be endorsed with the words ''fiat justitia'' on the advice of the Home Secretary and Attorney-General.〔 Similarly, the Crown could not be sued in tort. The usual remedy was for the complainant to sue the public servant responsible for the injury. A famous example was the case of ''Entick v. Carrington''. The Crown usually indemnified the servant against any damages. Henry Brougham called for equality between Crown and subjects in a House of Commons motion in 1828 but it was to be a further century before the proposal was realised. Government departments came up with a range of pragmatic devices to mitigate some of the effects of Crown immunity,〔TT Arvind 'Restraining the State through Tort? The Crown Proceedings Act in Retrospect' in TT Arvind and Jenny Steele (eds.), ''Tort Law and the Legislature'' (Hart 2013), pp. 415-8.〕 and although these left many problems unaddressed, many lawyers and politicians believed that the law generally struck a good balance.〔Arvind 2013, pp. 406-10〕 In 1921 a Crown Proceedings Committee was established, following a campaign by the legal profession which was also supported by the Law Officers of the Crown.〔Arvind 2013, pp. 420-1〕 The Committee was chaired by Lord Hewart. The Committee was deeply divided on the question of whether the Crown should be made liable in tort, but was instructed by the Lord Chancellor to draft a bill on the basis that it was desirable, leaving the political question to be decided by the Government once the bill had been prepared.〔Arvind 2013, pp. 422-423〕 The Committee produced a draft Bill in 1927. However, little was done to progress it through Parliament due to opposition within the Government (primarily from Admiralty and Viscount Hailsham.)〔Arvind 2013, pp. 424-425〕 In the 1940s, there was adverse criticism of the state of affairs from the House of Lords〔''Adams v. Naylor'' () AC 543〕 and the Court of Appeal.〔〔''Royster v. Cavey'' () KB 204〕 There was also political pressure on the Labour government from the trade unions, who feared that Crown immunity would severely affect the rights of workers in nationalised industries.〔Arvind 2013, pp. 426〕 The Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, also believed that it was politically important to demonstrate that the Labour government was committed to maintaining the rights of citizens against the State.〔Arvind 2013, p. 426.〕 The result was that the Act was made a priority, and passed through Parliament in 1947 with little controversy and to general acclaim.〔Arvind 2013, p. 427〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Crown Proceedings Act 1947」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|