CROWN MAY BE SUED

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 29, 16 May 1947, Page 9

CROWN MAY BE SUED

KING CANNOT BE IMPLEADED NEW BILL WILL SOON BE LAW The Crown, but not the King, can be sued by any British citizen with legitimate cause, under a Bill which has just been blessed by ‘‘elder statesmen of the law” in the House of Loi’ds. For 20 years the Bill had been pigeon-holed. It will soon be law. “His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Crown Proceedings Bill, is prepared to place the interests of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament in- connection with the Bill.”

Explaining the circumstances under which the measure had become necessary, the Lord Chancellor said that since the 13th century the rule had become established that the King could not be impleaded against in his own courts. There was another maxim that the King could do no wrong. The continued effects of those two maxims had made, themselves felt even to the present day. “I think it is only fitting,” continued Lord Jowitt, “that all those old difficulties in the way of impleading the Crown should be swept away.

“Nothing, in the Bill affects the King in his personal capacity. It would be inconsistent with his royal dignity that the King himself should be impleaded in his own court” On the clause relating to the arm»ed forces, he had often wondered whether, in the Charge of the Light Brigade, a/ trooper whose leg was shattered by a cannon ball could have brought an action against Lord Raglan on the ground that Lord Raglan had blundered. He had been pressed and, indeed, comjpelled by the Service Departments to insert this caluse to overcome the misgivings which they felt, and had traditionally felt, abput the introduction of this Bill.

The Bill applied to Scotland and there were facilities for applying it to Northern Ireland if they so de'sired.

Lord Raglan followed with: “As an ancestor of mine has been mentioned by the Lord Chancellor, may I say that my great-grandfather’s responsibility for the charge of the Light Brigade is not regarded by historians as by any means so certain a matter as the Lord Chancellor suggested?” The Bill was read a second time'.