ABSTRACT
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was established under the prerogative in 1964. Its objective was to provide compensation for the victims of criminal offences56 through ex gratia payments calculated on the same principles as compensation paid to victims of tort. The Board was reconstituted under statute in 1988,57 although the provisions had not been brought into force. Was the setting up of the Board in 1964 the exercise of a true prerogative? Reverting to Blackstone’s definition, the answer must be negative. The power to establish such a scheme clearly fell within parliament’s jurisdiction, as the Criminal Justice Act 1988 proves. However, under Dicey’s definition, the government is effectively given a choice in the manner of establishing such bodies: a surely questionable prerogative? In R v Criminal Injuries Board ex parte Lain (1967), Lord Diplock stated:
It may be a novel development in constitutional practice to govern by public statement of intention made by the executive government instead of by legislation. This is no more, however, than a reversion to the ancient practice of government by royal proclamation, although it is now subject to the limitations imposed on that practice by the development of constitutional law in the seventeenth century. [p 886]
Professor HWR Wade denies that this was an exercise of a true prerogative:
So far as the Crown came into the picture at all, it was exercising its ordinary powers as a natural person, which, of course, includes the power to transfer property, make contracts and so on. Blackstone was quite right, in my opinion, in saying that such powers are not prerogative at all.
