Case of Prohibitions [1607]
Share
The Case of Prohibitions [1607] EWHC J23 (KB) is a landmark UK constitutional law case presided over by Sir Edward Coke. This legal decision, occurring before the Glorious Revolution of 1688, marked a significant moment in asserting the supremacy of the courts over the monarch.
The factual context of the case involves King James I personally adjudicating a dispute related to a controversy of land between parties. In his role as judge, the King rendered a decision in the case.
Chief Justice Edward Coke, who was at the time the head of the Court of Common Pleas, subsequently reviewed the case. In a noteworthy judgment, Coke overturned the King's decision, asserting a crucial principle: cases must be adjudicated by individuals with legal training and are subject to the rule of law. Coke emphasised that common law cases should not be decided by natural reason but rather by the artificial reason and judgment of law, a discipline requiring extensive study and experience.
Coke's argument against the King's involvement in legal matters was expressed in response to the King's assertion that he, like judges, possessed reason. Coke countered that while the King may have natural reason, he lacked expertise in the laws of England. Cases involving the life, inheritance, or property of subjects, Coke argued, should be decided by the precise and learned reasoning of the law rather than by the monarch's personal judgment.
Coke metaphorically referred to the law as the golden met-wand and measure used to adjudicate cases, asserting that it served as a safeguard for both the subjects and the monarch, ensuring justice, safety, and peace. This assertion displeased the King, who contended that being under the law would be treasonous. In response, Coke cited Bracton, stating "That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law."
In another account of the case, Coke emphasised that all legal matters should be measured "by the golden and straight met-wand of the law" rather than the uncertain and discretionary judgments of individuals. The Case of Prohibitions thus played a pivotal role in establishing the principle that legal cases should be decided by those versed in the law and subject to its objective standards, marking a shift in authority from the monarchy to the courts.
The factual context of the case involves King James I personally adjudicating a dispute related to a controversy of land between parties. In his role as judge, the King rendered a decision in the case.
Chief Justice Edward Coke, who was at the time the head of the Court of Common Pleas, subsequently reviewed the case. In a noteworthy judgment, Coke overturned the King's decision, asserting a crucial principle: cases must be adjudicated by individuals with legal training and are subject to the rule of law. Coke emphasised that common law cases should not be decided by natural reason but rather by the artificial reason and judgment of law, a discipline requiring extensive study and experience.
Coke's argument against the King's involvement in legal matters was expressed in response to the King's assertion that he, like judges, possessed reason. Coke countered that while the King may have natural reason, he lacked expertise in the laws of England. Cases involving the life, inheritance, or property of subjects, Coke argued, should be decided by the precise and learned reasoning of the law rather than by the monarch's personal judgment.
Coke metaphorically referred to the law as the golden met-wand and measure used to adjudicate cases, asserting that it served as a safeguard for both the subjects and the monarch, ensuring justice, safety, and peace. This assertion displeased the King, who contended that being under the law would be treasonous. In response, Coke cited Bracton, stating "That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law."
In another account of the case, Coke emphasised that all legal matters should be measured "by the golden and straight met-wand of the law" rather than the uncertain and discretionary judgments of individuals. The Case of Prohibitions thus played a pivotal role in establishing the principle that legal cases should be decided by those versed in the law and subject to its objective standards, marking a shift in authority from the monarchy to the courts.
