The Case of Prohibitions [1607]

(1607) 12 Co. Rep. 63, 77 E.R. 1342 · Court of King's Bench · England and Wales

Legal Historylegal-historyexecutive-powerroyal-prerogativecommon-lawLegal History

Issue

Whether the King of England, as sovereign, could personally sit in judgment and decide cases in the common law courts, or remove cases from them and decide them himself.

Held

The King cannot personally decide any case. Matters of law must be determined by the judges of the courts of law, who have experience and training in the law. The King is subject to the law and cannot act as a judge.

Exam use

Use this case to answer any question about the historical limits on royal prerogative or the independence of the judiciary. It is a direct ancestor of modern administrative law principles. When discussing the rule of law, cite Coke's maxim that the King is under God and the law. Contrast this with absolutist theories. In comparative law questions, note how the UK's constitutional settlement differed from continental absolutism. The 'artificial reason' concept is crucial for understanding the common law tradition.

Summary

The Case of Prohibitions (1607) is a foundational constitutional case in English legal history where Sir Edward Coke CJ established that the King cannot personally judge any case, but rather must delegate judicial power to the courts. This case defined the boundary between the royal prerogative and the jurisdiction of the common law courts, affirming that questions of law must be decided by judges trained in the law.

Facts

King James I had a dispute with the Court of Common Pleas regarding jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters. The King claimed that as sovereign, he had the inherent power to personally hear and decide cases in his own courts, especially where the law was unclear. The Archbishop of Canterbury and other church officials supported the King's claim. King James I asserted that the law was founded on reason and that he possessed as much reason as his judges. The King summoned the judges to discuss whether he could remove cases from the courts and decide them personally, or whether the courts could prohibit ecclesiastical courts from exceeding their jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The matter came before the King and his Privy Council. Chief Justice Coke and the other common law judges were summoned to the Council. The King himself participated in the discussion. Coke's report records the oral exchange and his response to the King's claim.

Issue

Whether the King of England, as sovereign, could personally sit in judgment and decide cases in the common law courts, or remove cases from them and decide them himself.

Held

The King cannot personally decide any case. Matters of law must be determined by the judges of the courts of law, who have experience and training in the law. The King is subject to the law and cannot act as a judge.

Ratio Decidendi

The King, though he is head of the judiciary and justice is administered in his name, cannot personally sit in judgment. The judicial power is vested in the courts, which must apply the law. The King has no power to impose a penalty or decide a case by his own authority. The common law is an artificial reason that requires long study and experience, which the King does not possess.

Obiter Dicta

Coke's famous statement that the King is 'under God and the law' (rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege) is an important constitutional principle that underpins the rule of law.

Reasoning

Coke CJ reasoned that the law is not a matter of natural reason alone, but of 'artificial reason' acquired through long study and experience. While the King had great natural reason, he lacked the technical knowledge of the law. Cases must be decided by the courts according to the law and custom of England. The King could not arrest a case from the courts or decide it personally. Coke cited Bracton's maxim that the King is under God and the law (rex sub Deo et lege). The judges have the sole authority to expound the law and administer justice. The King's prerogative does not extend to personally judging cases, as that would subvert the jurisdiction of the courts.

Plain-English Explanation

King James I thought he could judge cases himself because he was the king and had reason. But Chief Justice Coke told him that the law is not just reason; it is 'artificial reason' learned by judges after many years of study. The King could not just sit down and decide a case because he didn't know the technical rules of law. This case established that the monarchy could not interfere in the courts, and that even the King is subject to the law. It is a foundation of the rule of law and judicial independence.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to The Case of Prohibitions ((1607) 12 Co. Rep. 63, 77 E.R. 1342) strengthens a Legal History answer because the case reflects the principle that The King, though he is head of the judiciary and justice is administered in his name, cannot personally sit in judgment. The judicial power is vested in the courts, which must apply the law. The King has no power to impose a penalty or decide a case by his own authority. The common law is an artificial reason that requires long study and experience, which the King does not possess. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the King of England, as sovereign, could personally sit in judgment and decide cases in the common law courts, or remove cases from them and decide them himself. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • Rule of law
  • Judicial independence
  • Separation of powers
  • Royal prerogative
  • Artificial reason
  • Rex sub Deo et lege

Precedents Applied

  • Bracton's De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae

Later Treatment

  • Case of Proclamations (1611)
  • Prohibitions del Roy (1607) (another report of same case)

Key Passages

  • ...the King in his own person cannot adjudge any case, but this ought to be determined and adjudged in some Court of Justice, according to the law and custom of England.
  • The King is under God and the law (rex sub Deo et lege).

Significance

The Case of Prohibitions is a cornerstone of the constitutional principle that the monarch (or executive) is subject to the law and cannot exercise judicial power. It is a key authority for the separation of powers in the English legal system, specifically the independence of the judiciary from the Crown. The case illustrates the struggle between the Stuart monarchy and the common law courts, which the courts ultimately won. This case, along with the Case of Proclamations (1611), established limits on royal prerogative and affirmed the rule of law. In modern legal history exams, it is used to discuss the historical origins of judicial independence and the principle that the executive cannot interfere with the administration of justice.

Related Cases

Exam Tips

Use this case to answer any question about the historical limits on royal prerogative or the independence of the judiciary. It is a direct ancestor of modern administrative law principles. When discussing the rule of law, cite Coke's maxim that the King is under God and the law. Contrast this with absolutist theories. In comparative law questions, note how the UK's constitutional settlement differed from continental absolutism. The 'artificial reason' concept is crucial for understanding the common law tradition.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

If a problem question features a modern executive figure (Prime Minister, President, Minister) attempting to personally adjudicate a legal dispute, this case provides the historical foundation against such action. Argue that the executive cannot usurp the judicial function, even if the executive has the power to appoint judges. In a question about the separation of powers, this case is Exhibit A for the English historical commitment to an independent judiciary. For questions on the royal prerogative, this case shows the limits: the King could not sit as a judge.

Common Pitfalls

  • Confusing this case with the Case of Proclamations (they are related but distinct; Proclamations deals with legislative power, this with judicial)
  • Assuming this case created a full modern separation of powers (it didn't; the Lord Chancellor was a cabinet member until 2005)
  • Treating Coke's 'King under the law' as being about statutory sovereignty rather than judicial independence

Sources