British Coal Corporation v. the King
Encyclopedia
British Coal Corporation v. the King [1935] A.C. 500 is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
in which the authority of the Canadian Parliament to prohibit appeals to the JCPC in criminal cases was upheld.
In 1888, Canada had passed legislation prohibiting appeals to the JCPC in criminal matters. The JCPC voided that legislation in Nadan v. the King [1926] A.C. 482, finding that the prohibition of appeals to the Privy Council was ultra vires
the authority of the Canadian Parliament under the British North America Act, 1867, and the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865.
Between Nadan and British Coal, the Imperial Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster
in 1931. Following the passage of the Statute, Canada reinstated legislation barring appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters.
In petitioning the Privy Council, the British Coal Corporation sought to have the new legislation overturned, arguing that "The Statute of Westminster contains no words which expressly or by necessary implication confer power to take away or diminish this prerogative."
The Statute of Westminster freed Dominion legislatures from the constraints of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. According to this Act, colonial laws "repugnant" to laws, orders, or regulations imposed by the United Kingdom Parliament were to be considered "absolutely void and inoperative." It was on the basis of the British North America Act and the Colonial Laws Validity Act that the prohibition of appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters had been struck down in Nadan.
British Coal was the first Privy Council case since the passage of the Statute of Westminster to address to scope of Canada's newly granted legislative competence.
Having established that the JCPC had the role of a court of law, Sankey went on to outline the relevant legal history between the passage of the Judicial Committee Act and the Statute of Westminster, including the enactment of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Sankey distinguished Nadan from the present case by noting that the former decision had been based on the inconsistency of Canada's earlier prohibition of criminal appeals to the Privy Council with the Judicial Committee Acts and the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Specifically, the prohibition was inconsistent on two grounds:
It remained to be seen, Sankey noted, whether the British North America Act gave Canada the legislative competence to prohibit criminal appeals after the Statute of Westminster had abrogated the Colonial Laws Validity Act and permitted the Parliament of Canada to pass laws having extraterritorial operation:
While the Statute of Westminster had removed the two limits that prevented Canada from prohibiting criminal appeals to the JCPC in Nadan, Sankey went on to argue that such a prohibition was within the scope of Canada's legislative competence under the British North America Act. In interpreting the B.N.A. Act, Sankey approached the Act in a manner similar to that which he used in the 1931 Persons case. "It must be remembered what the nature and scope of the Act are," he wrote. "In interpreting a constituent .. or organic statute such as the Act, that construction most beneficial to the widest possible amplitude of its powers must be adopted."
Applying this "large and liberal" method of construction to the B.N.A. Act, Sankey found that s. 91 of the Act did empower the Canadian Parliament to forbid appeals to the JCPC.
While noting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom
could, if it wished, repeal all or part of the Statute of Westminster, enabling it to reassert its authority over Canadian affairs at any time, Sankey noted that this was a matter of "theory and has no relation to realities. In truth Canada is in enjoyment of the full scope of self-government."
Civil appeals to the JCPC were permitted under Canadian law until 1949.
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom. Established by the Judicial Committee Act 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King in Council The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is one of the highest courts in the United...
in which the authority of the Canadian Parliament to prohibit appeals to the JCPC in criminal cases was upheld.
Background
The British Coal Corporation and several other coal-importing companies had been convicted under the Canadian Criminal Code and the Combines Investigation Act, and sought to appeal these convictions to the JCPC.In 1888, Canada had passed legislation prohibiting appeals to the JCPC in criminal matters. The JCPC voided that legislation in Nadan v. the King [1926] A.C. 482, finding that the prohibition of appeals to the Privy Council was ultra vires
Ultra vires
Ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning literally "beyond the powers", although its standard legal translation and substitute is "beyond power". If an act requires legal authority and it is done with such authority, it is...
the authority of the Canadian Parliament under the British North America Act, 1867, and the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865.
Between Nadan and British Coal, the Imperial Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster
Statute of Westminster 1931
The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Passed on 11 December 1931, the Act established legislative equality for the self-governing dominions of the British Empire with the United Kingdom...
in 1931. Following the passage of the Statute, Canada reinstated legislation barring appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters.
In petitioning the Privy Council, the British Coal Corporation sought to have the new legislation overturned, arguing that "The Statute of Westminster contains no words which expressly or by necessary implication confer power to take away or diminish this prerogative."
The Statute of Westminster
Passed in 1931, the Statute of Westminster "was the last of the Imperial Acts of the Parliament applicable to all the Dominions. It granted Canada...what amounted to independence." More specifically, the Statute removed limits on the legislative competence of the Parliament of Canada. "The Statute of Westminster had removed any legislative incompetence from the Canadian legislature and accordingly the legislature had full power to enact the section in question."The Statute of Westminster freed Dominion legislatures from the constraints of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. According to this Act, colonial laws "repugnant" to laws, orders, or regulations imposed by the United Kingdom Parliament were to be considered "absolutely void and inoperative." It was on the basis of the British North America Act and the Colonial Laws Validity Act that the prohibition of appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters had been struck down in Nadan.
British Coal was the first Privy Council case since the passage of the Statute of Westminster to address to scope of Canada's newly granted legislative competence.
The decision
Writing for the Privy Council, Lord Sankey first described the origins of the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council, as created by the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, and refined by a second Judicial Committee Act in 1844. In Sankey's words, "It is clear that the Committee is regarded in the Act as a judicial body or Court" which "exercised as a Court of law in reality, though not in name, the residual prerogative of the King in Council."Having established that the JCPC had the role of a court of law, Sankey went on to outline the relevant legal history between the passage of the Judicial Committee Act and the Statute of Westminster, including the enactment of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Sankey distinguished Nadan from the present case by noting that the former decision had been based on the inconsistency of Canada's earlier prohibition of criminal appeals to the Privy Council with the Judicial Committee Acts and the Colonial Laws Validity Act. Specifically, the prohibition was inconsistent on two grounds:
- It was repugnant to the Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and 1844, running afoul of the Colonial Laws Validity Act by implication.
- To be effective, it had to have an extraterritorial dimension, which Canadian laws could not possess until the passage of the Statute of Westminster.
It remained to be seen, Sankey noted, whether the British North America Act gave Canada the legislative competence to prohibit criminal appeals after the Statute of Westminster had abrogated the Colonial Laws Validity Act and permitted the Parliament of Canada to pass laws having extraterritorial operation:
Their Lordships have now to decide that very same question and to decide it, as they conceive, without any direct help or guidance from earlier decisions of the Judicial Committee, now that the Statute has removed the two difficulties which were decisive in Nadan's case.
While the Statute of Westminster had removed the two limits that prevented Canada from prohibiting criminal appeals to the JCPC in Nadan, Sankey went on to argue that such a prohibition was within the scope of Canada's legislative competence under the British North America Act. In interpreting the B.N.A. Act, Sankey approached the Act in a manner similar to that which he used in the 1931 Persons case. "It must be remembered what the nature and scope of the Act are," he wrote. "In interpreting a constituent .. or organic statute such as the Act, that construction most beneficial to the widest possible amplitude of its powers must be adopted."
Applying this "large and liberal" method of construction to the B.N.A. Act, Sankey found that s. 91 of the Act did empower the Canadian Parliament to forbid appeals to the JCPC.
It does not indeed do so by express terms, but it does so by necessary intendment. Sect. 91 of the Act, read along with the rest of the Act, is, according to its true construction in their Lordships' opinion, apart from the limitations already referred to, intended to make and is apt to make the Dominion Legislature supreme and endow it with the same authority as the Imperial Parliament, within the assigned limits of subject and area...
While noting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom
Parliament of the United Kingdom
The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom, British Crown dependencies and British overseas territories, located in London...
could, if it wished, repeal all or part of the Statute of Westminster, enabling it to reassert its authority over Canadian affairs at any time, Sankey noted that this was a matter of "theory and has no relation to realities. In truth Canada is in enjoyment of the full scope of self-government."
Civil appeals to the JCPC were permitted under Canadian law until 1949.
See also
- Judicial Committee of the Privy CouncilJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilThe Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom. Established by the Judicial Committee Act 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King in Council The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is one of the highest courts in the United...
- List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
- Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General)Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General)Edwards v. Canada [1930] A.C. 124 – also known as the Persons Case – is a famous Canadian and British constitutional case where it was first decided that women were eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate...