Crown Immunity In Criminal Prosecutions
🔍 What is Crown Immunity?
Crown Immunity (also called Sovereign Immunity) is a legal doctrine that historically protected the Crown (the government or monarch) from being prosecuted or sued without its consent.
In criminal law, it concerns whether the Crown, or agents acting on behalf of the Crown, can be criminally prosecuted.
This immunity extends to acts done by Crown servants or public officials in the course of their duties, unless otherwise provided by law.
It aims to protect government functions from interference but is balanced against the need for accountability.
⚖️ Legal Principles
The principle originates from the maxim: "The King can do no wrong."
Over time, statutory and common law developments have restricted Crown Immunity, especially regarding criminal acts.
Generally, Crown servants are not immune from criminal prosecution for unlawful acts committed in their official capacity.
However, certain acts done by the Crown or its servants may still attract immunity, especially discretionary or policy decisions.
The Crown cannot prosecute itself; prosecutions are brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
📚 Key Cases on Crown Immunity in Criminal Prosecutions
1. R v. Smith (Charles James) [1914] AC 153
Facts: The case involved whether the Crown could be criminally liable for unlawful acts committed by its servants.
Held: The House of Lords recognized that Crown servants can be prosecuted if they commit crimes; the Crown itself has immunity from prosecution.
Significance:
Established that individual Crown servants can be prosecuted, but the Crown as an entity cannot be.
Crown immunity applies to the sovereign, not agents.
2. R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 119
Facts: Although primarily about immunity from civil suits for former heads of state, it touches on the limits of immunity.
Held: The House of Lords ruled that certain acts, including torture, cannot be protected by sovereign immunity.
Significance:
Implies that Crown immunity does not shield against serious crimes, especially human rights violations.
3. R v. Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287
Facts: Concerned Crown servants accused of criminal wrongdoing while on duty.
Held: Crown servants can be held liable criminally for acts outside the scope of their duties or involving criminal intent.
Significance:
Reaffirms that Crown servants do not have blanket immunity.
Focus on whether acts were within official duties.
4. R (on the application of Privacy International) v. Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22
Facts: The case dealt with the scope of legal immunity for intelligence agencies and related bodies.
Held: The Supreme Court limited the scope of immunity and emphasized judicial oversight, suggesting Crown immunity cannot be absolute.
Significance:
Modern case emphasizing limits to Crown immunity in the context of public accountability.
5. Attorney-General v. Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440
Facts: Considered the extent of Crown privilege and immunity from prosecution for disclosures.
Held: Crown privilege does not extend to immunity from criminal prosecution for unlawful acts.
Significance:
Crown immunity cannot be used to shield criminal wrongdoing.
6. R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513
Facts: Concerned governmental discretion and immunity from challenge.
Held: The Crown cannot claim immunity for unlawful acts or failure to act within the law.
Significance:
Demonstrates limits on Crown immunity concerning rule of law and legality.
⚖️ Summary Table of Crown Immunity Cases
| Case | Year | Legal Issue | Outcome / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Smith (Charles James) | 1914 | Immunity of Crown servants | Crown servants liable; Crown itself immune |
| R v. Bow Street Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet (No 2) | 2000 | Limits of sovereign immunity | Immunity does not protect serious crimes like torture |
| R v. Hennessy | 1989 | Liability of Crown servants | No blanket immunity if outside duty or criminal intent |
| Privacy Int. v. Investigatory Powers Tribunal | 2019 | Scope of immunity for intelligence | Limits absolute immunity; ensures oversight |
| Attorney-General v. Leveller Magazine | 1979 | Crown privilege and immunity | No immunity for criminal wrongdoing |
| R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union | 1995 | Government discretion and immunity | Crown cannot evade lawfulness obligations |
🧠 Key Takeaways
The Crown itself is immune from prosecution, but this immunity does not extend to individuals acting on behalf of the Crown.
Crown servants (police, officials, soldiers) can be prosecuted if they commit crimes, especially outside their lawful duties.
Immunity is limited and cannot shield serious crimes such as torture or human rights violations.
The doctrine aims to balance government function protection with accountability.
Modern jurisprudence increasingly restricts Crown immunity to ensure rule of law and justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments