Hello friends,

My question relates to the principle of Ministerial responsibity as prevalent in Britain.

Ministerial responsibility, which is a corollory to an old maxim 'king can do no wrong', has two implications. One, legal and other political.

My question is about the legal aspect of the ministerial responsibility.

It is clear that the Minister is responsible for his/her actions and cannot take shelter under the royal immunity of 'king can do no wrong' as illustrated in the Danby's case.
what is not clear, however, is that whether this responsibility is in his(minister's) personal capacity and a personal liability or is it that of a government and that the government has to shoulder the responsibilty??? Thus who will have to pay the compensation to the wronged- the govt. or the minister himself???

hope the question is stated clearly.....

answers anyone!!

Does the question need further elaboration to deserve an answer???
Is it not that clear??

__________________
Why not !?

This is the last call for an answer..

The point raised in the question is also related to the emergence of administrative law in britain, if you guys can connect the dots.

__________________
Why not !?

What you are referring to is called Individual Ministerial Responsibility. Individually each minster is responsible to parliament for the work of his department of which he is the head. Now regarding your question whether he is liable in his personal capacity; the answer is yes he is liable for any breach of law, and will be held accountable before a court, no government shelter.
Secondly, a minister, who commits a mistake in his departmental policy and is not defended by the prime minister, is individually responsible for it and must face consequences whatever, and it is what you are refering to as Political .
But if the cabinet comes to his defense it becomes Collective Ministerial Responsibility.There are two concepts Collective and Individual Ministerial Responsibility.
Only in Collective ministerial responsibility, the government has to shoulder the liability of its minister. Hopefully you got it.

__________________
Prejudice is an opinion without judgment. Voltaire my hero

@ out of place

I have understood ur question, and i think u r mixing ministerial responisibility with remedies under judicial review ..
Remember that Ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention, and there IS no legal aspect of imposing a punishment on the breach of a convention .. However, the breach of a convention leads a minister to be a subjected to serious legitimate political criticism .. And as a result, the minister has to resign ..
And remember again, its not obligatory for a minister to resign under such circumstances .. The party can however ask him to if he refuses to resign .. But in many cases when a minister is of paramount importance to the party, they dnt ask for it either ..
The examples are Mandelson, Parkinson .. I think one of these was in times of Margaret Thacher .. Thacher backed him, despite breach of serious convention of ministerial responsibility ..
And remember, courts cannot intervene on breach of a convention, its a strictly political concept ..
And if u meant to say "what if a minister does wrong to any public member" .. or what if a minister fails to administer properly any task given to him under his jurisdiction .. The answer is that this is not a ministerial responsibility question .. This is a judicial review question .. In that case the party cannot stand with its minister, courts have to intervene ..
If u have anything further to ask, i m here ..
Regards ..

__________________
You Have To Keep Breaking Your Heart Until It Opens .. !! Rumi ..

@ stunner;

bro, there is no such thing as judicial review in britain.

@ stunner and sajidnuml

True, 'ministerial responsibility' is based on conventions and its legal aspect is a natural result of another convention famously known as 'king can do no wrong'... According to convention, minister can be tried in the court of law for his actions and the minister cannot pass the buck to the king. Although minister carries out his work in the name of king/queen, he is himself responsible for its consequences and cannot shift the responsibility to the king because as the convention goes, "king can do no wrong"--and all this is in the personal capacity of the minister.

However, increasingly an aspect of administrative law is emerging in Britain, according to which the state assumes the responsibility of any wrong done by the minister. Thus the government is 'steadily facilitating the process of allowing suits against it'. This enables the wronged party/injured citizen to collect the adequate compensation from the official involved.

That's how i undertand the link between ministerial responsibility-king can do no wrong-and administrative law......

Otherwise,, how can the following statement from kealy be explained.
Under the title 'adminitrative law in england' , kealy writes:

"The question of the individual liability of government officials is a complicated one because it is linked up with another conception of english law known as "the king can do no wrong". This well known maxim of English law means that the government cannot be sued without its consent. with the result that as long as the govt. refuse to accept responsibility for the action of one of its agents, the aggrieved individual has no other option but to sue the official personally"

__________________
Why not !?

I can only smile at that comment .. Plzz study again

And the convention u r constantly quoting 'King can do no wrong' is in historical context .. Conventions cannot be created or repealed in Britain .. They were there already as normal practices, habits, customs etc .. And they cannot be expressly removed, they just fade away gradually when they r no longer used .. So has the convention which u have been quoting ..
I would suggest u to NOT to read Desi writers on the subject of UK constitutional law ..

If u can, plzz read:

1-Hillary Barnett on UK constitutional law (Which is also called Public law in UK) ..
2- Studies in constitutional law by Munro ..

I have not opted this subject in CSS bcz i m not aware of French, American and Pakistani Constitutional law .. But i have studied British Constitutional law for a full one year during my LLB degree from University of London .. So, dnt tell me that there is no Judicial Review in Britain .. And if u wana keep quoting the expired conventions ( I know they dnt expire actually, they r just never used again if they are not needed anymore), thats ur choice ..

But i think now that i m bound to answer u in detail ..

''The concept of Ministerial responsibility involves a group of conventional rules regulating the relationship of government to Parliament. A brief explanation of ministerial responsibility is that "ministers are responsible for the general conduct of government, including the exercise of many powers legally vested in the Monarch; and ultimately, through Parliament and parties, to the electorate. The sanction for misconduct of government is that a minister is exposed to criticism or censure in the House (H0use of commons), and, if the misconduct is serious, may be expected to resign" .. Abstract from Munro
(This was answer to ur legal aspect of the convention, it does not mention any legal sanctions .. As i told u, conventions are political, not legal .. They cannot be tried in courts)

And i would suggest u to read Dicey and Sir Ivor Jennigs on this topic ..
Dicey marks a clear distinction between laws and conventions .. "laws are enforced by courts, conventions are not".
And the most important point is "breach of law means a person has acted illegally, breach of ministerial responsibility convention means a minister has acted unconstitutionally, NOT illegally" .. And if ministers do something unconstitutional in England, they are criticized in the parliament and hence they have to resign .. They are not tried in courts

If u still have any doubts i can clear them .. But do ur reading first, other wise not even a Professor from University of London can make a blank mind understand conventions, they r really tough ..

Regards ..

__________________
You Have To Keep Breaking Your Heart Until It Opens .. !! Rumi ..

@ stunner

All the respect for your 'full one year study of british constitution during LLB from university of london'
It is gud that qualified ppl like u are here at this forum,,we are going to get a lot of insight.

Having said that,,,,there are few points that need further elaboration.

1) According to u there is this system of judicial review in britain.

now,,,if that is so then i will have to turn my existing knowledge of british constitutional system upside down..

In order to avoid any misconceptions, lets be clear.
Judicial review is a special power of the courts/judiciary which allows it to declare any legislation/executive order as ultra vires of the constitution. Any act, either by the parliament or the executive, that is not in accordance with the provision of the constitution can be declared null and void by the judiciary. This is what judicial review is all about..or is it not...?!
And if this is what judicial review is then since when did the british judiciary begin to enjoy this power??? kindly enlighten.

2) According to u , 'King can do no wrong' is a convention that has faded away and does not hold water anymore.

now,,,if that is so then does it mean all the implications of the above old maxim stand "expired"
Because according to our very "own" Dicey , 'King can do no wrong' has following two implications
1) king enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of any court of law
2) and king cannot authorize anyone else to do wrong from which flows the concept of ministerial responsibility.

if the above two implications have faded away with the convention itself then again my undertanding of the british constitutional system has to be turned upside down.

Away from the debate about the conventions,,,what i mean from the legal aspect of ministerial responsibility can be understood in the light of following extract from our "Desi" book..Refute it and the debate about the ministerial responsibility will end.

""" Ministerial responsibility is of two types 1) legal responsibility 2) political responsibility. By legal responsibility it is meant that a minister who countersigns the executive order issued in the name of the Queen is responsible for it and can be sued in a court of law if that action is ilegal. This type of responsibility is the direct result of the maxim, 'the king can do no wrong'. Political responsibility means that all ministers whether included in the cabinet or not are responsible to the house of commons individually as well as collectively. The individual responsibility of a minister means that as political head of his department he is answerable for all its acts and omissions. His colleague may repudiate him and make him lose his office but generally they rally to his support and make common cause with him so collective responisiblity may be taken for granted""""

Refute the above quoted extract from a book and that is it....

__________________
Why not !?

Assalam o Alaikum ..

Yea mate honestly u "will have to turn 'your' existing knowledge of british constitutional system upside down".. Bcz without Judicial Review Britain would have been God knows what ..

I m preparing an answer for u .. And i will get back to u by tonight InshaAllah .. My friend is going to china and i have to be with him until he leaves ..

Regards ..

__________________
You Have To Keep Breaking Your Heart Until It Opens .. !! Rumi ..