Editing Bill of Rights 1689 (section)

==Current legal status==
The Bill of Rights remains in statute and continues to be cited in legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and other [[Commonwealth realm]]s, particularly Article&nbsp;9 on [[Parliamentary privilege|parliamentary freedom of speech]].{{sfn|Lock|1989|pp=540–561}}<ref name=Topo>{{cite web |author=Toporoski, Richard |url=http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19970617074036/http://www.monarchist.ca/mc/invisibl.htm |archive-date=17 June 1997 |title=''Monarchy Canada'': The Invisible Crown |date=Summer 1996}}</ref> Following the [[Perth Agreement]] in 2011, legislation amending the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement 1701 came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26&nbsp;March 2015 which changed the laws of succession to the British throne.

===Australia===
The Bill of Rights 1689 remains a part of Australian law, however in some states the Bill has been re-enacted in local legislation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McDermott |first=Peter M. |date=1990-01-12 |title=Imperial Statutes in Australia and New Zealand |url=https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BondLawRw/1990/13.pdf |journal=Bond Law Review |volume=2 |issue=2}}</ref>

The ninth article, regarding parliamentary freedom of speech, was inherited by [[Parliament of Australia|Federal Parliament]] in 1901 under section 49 of the [[Australian Constitution]]. It was incorporated into the ''Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987'' which "preserves the application of the traditional expression of this privilege, but spells out in some detail just what may be covered by the term 'proceedings in Parliament{{'"}}.<ref>{{cite news |title=Infosheet 5 - Parliamentary privilege |publisher=Parliament of Australia |url=https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_5_-_Parliamentary_privilege |access-date=16 August 2020}}</ref>

===Canada===
In Canada, the Bill of Rights remains in statute,<ref>{{cite web |last=Senate of Canada |date=20 March 2013 |title=LCJC Meeting No. 74 |url=http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&eventid=8763&Language=E |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130614215631/http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&eventid=8763&Language=E |archive-date=14 June 2013 |access-date=24 March 2013 |publisher=Queen's Printer for Canada |df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2519/index.do ''Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution''<nowiki>, [1981] 1 SCR 753, p. 785.</nowiki>]</ref> although it has been largely superseded by domestic constitutional legislation. The ninth article on parliamentary freedom of speech remains in active use.{{sfn|Lock|1989|pp=540–561}}

===Ireland===
The application of the Bill of Rights to the [[Kingdom of Ireland]] was uncertain. While the English Parliament sometimes passed acts relating to Ireland, the [[Irish Patriot Party]] regarded this as illegitimate, and others felt that English acts only extended to Ireland when explicitly stated to do so, which was not the case for the Bill of Rights. The [[Crown of Ireland Act 1542]] meant the Bill's changes to the royal succession extended to Ireland. [[Bill (law)|Bill]]s modelled on the Bill of Rights were introduced in the [[Parliament of Ireland]] in 1695 and 1697 but not enacted. After the [[Acts of Union 1800]], provisions relating to the rights of Parliament implicitly extended to Ireland, but provisions relating to the rights of the individual were a grey area. Some jurists regarded the bill not as [[positive law]] but as [[declaratory law|declaratory]] of the [[common law]], and as such applicable to Ireland.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Osborough |first1=W. N. |date=1998 |title=The Failure To Enact An Irish Bill Of Rights: A Gap In Irish Constitutional History |journal=Irish Jurist |volume=33 |pages=392–416 |issn=0021-1273 |jstor=44027310}}; {{cite journal |last1=Osborough |first1=W. N. |date=2002 |title=Constitutionally Constructing A Sense Of Oneness: Facets Of Law In Ireland After The Union |journal=Irish Jurist |volume=37 |pages=227–240 |issn=0021-1273 |jstor=44027023}}</ref>

The [[Constitution of the Irish Free State]], and the subsequent [[Constitution of Ireland]], carry over laws in force in the former [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland]] to the extent they were not repugnant to those constitutions. The Bill of Rights was not referred to in subsequent Irish legislation<ref>{{cite web |date=26 February 2020 |title=Pre-1922 Legislation: Statutes of England Affected: 1688 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/isbc/esa1688.html |access-date=11 March 2020 |website=Irish Statute Book}}</ref> until the [[Statute Law Revision Act 2007]], which retained it,<ref>Statute Law Revision Act 2007 [http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2 §2(2)(a)] and [http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/schedule/1/enacted/en/html#sched1-part2 Schedule 1 Part 2]</ref> changed its short title to "Bill of Rights 1688"{{refn|name=shorttitle|group="nb"}} and repealed most of section 1 (the preamble) as being religiously discriminatory, which included:<ref>[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/section/5/enacted/en/html Statute Law Revision Act 2007 §5(a)]</ref><ref>Statute Law Revision Act 2007 [http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/28/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2 §2(3)]; {{cite web |last1=Kitt |first1=Tom |author-link=Tom Kitt (politician) |date=14 February 2007 |title=Statute Law Revision Bill 2007: Committee Stage |url=https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/seanad/2007-02-14/speech/355/ |access-date=11 March 2020 |website=Seanad Éireann (22nd Seanad) Debates |publisher=Oireachtas |page=c.187 |language=en-ie |no-pp=y |volume=186}}</ref> all words down to "Upon which Letters Elections having been accordingly made"; Article 7, which allowed Protestants to bear arms; and all words from "And they doe Claime Demand and Insist".

The [[Houses of the Oireachtas]] (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 repealed Article 9 on "freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament" as part of a consolidation of the law on [[parliamentary privilege]].<ref>{{cite web |date=24 July 2013 |title=Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013 |url=http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/33/enacted/en/html |access-date=11 March 2020 |website=electronic Irish Statute Book |language=en}} §5 and Schedule</ref>

===New Zealand===
The Bill of Rights is part of the laws of New Zealand.<ref name="Bill">{{citation |last=Elizabeth II |title=Royal Succession Bill |url=http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0099/latest/DLM5025805.html |year=2013 |at=S.10, 11, 12 |place=Wellington |publisher=Queen's Printer |quote=The Bill of Rights 1688 (1 Will and Mar Sess 2, c 2) continues to be part of the laws of New Zealand... The Act of Settlement 1700 (12 and 13 Will 3, c 2) continues to be part of the laws of New Zealand... On the changeover, the Royal Marriages Act 1772 ceases to be part of the laws of New Zealand. |access-date=18 July 2013}}</ref> The Act was invoked in the 1976 case of ''[[Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others]]'',<ref>{{cite web |title=The Constitutional Setting |url=http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=4277&pageno=3 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081016073216/http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=4277 |archive-date=16 October 2008 |publisher=States Services Commission, New Zealand}}</ref> which centred on the purporting of newly appointed Prime Minister [[Robert Muldoon]] that he would advise the [[Governor-General]] to abolish a [[superannuation]] scheme established by the New Zealand Superannuation Act 1974, without new legislation. Muldoon felt that the dissolution would be immediate and he would later introduce a bill in parliament to retroactively make the abolition legal. This claim was challenged in court and the [[Chief Justice]] declared that Muldoon's actions were illegal as they had violated Article&nbsp;1 of the Bill of Rights, which provides "that the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority ... is illegal."<ref>{{cite web |title=The legitimacy of judicial review of executive decision-making |url=http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/publications_and_submissions/lawtalk/2010_issues/lawtalk,_issue_743/the_legitimacy_of_judicial_review_of_executive_decision-making |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100204112322/http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/publications_and_submissions/lawtalk/2010_issues/lawtalk,_issue_743/the_legitimacy_of_judicial_review_of_executive_decision-making |archive-date=4 February 2010 |publisher=New Zealand Law Society}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
[[File:Allegory of the English Bill of Rights.png|thumb|[[Allegory (painting)|Allegory]] of the Bill of Rights, with [[Britannia (personification)|Britannia]] presenting the Bill to [[William III of England|William]] and [[Mary II of England|Mary]].]]
The Bill of Rights applies in England and Wales; it was enacted in the [[Kingdom of England]] which at the time included Wales. Scotland has its own legislation, the [[Claim of Right Act 1689]], passed before the Act of Union between England and Scotland. There are doubts as to whether, or to what extent, the Bill of Rights applies in [[Northern Ireland]], reflecting [[#Ireland|earlier doubts as regards Ireland]].{{sfn|Lock|1989|pp=540–561}}{{refn|group=nb|The United Kingdom consists of four countries and three distinct legal systems: [[England and Wales]], [[Scotland]] and [[Northern Ireland]].<ref>{{cite web |title=A Guide to the UK Legal System |url=http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/United_Kingdom.html |department=Hauser Global Law School Program |publisher=New York University School of Law |access-date=16 March 2016 |date=November 2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=The Legal System of the United Kingdom |url=http://www.cilex.org.uk/about_cilex_lawyers/the_uk_legal_system.aspx |publisher=The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives |access-date=16 March 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160313232551/http://www.cilex.org.uk/about_cilex_lawyers/the_uk_legal_system.aspx |archive-date=13 March 2016}}</ref> These jurisdictions have particular legal considerations of their own, arising from differences in [[English law]], [[Scots law]] and [[Northern Ireland law]].}}

The requirement that jurors be freeholders in cases of high treason was abolished in England and Wales by the [[Juries Act 1825]], and in Northern Ireland (to the extent it applied) by the [[Statute Law Revision Act 1950]].

[[Natural justice]], the right to a fair trial, is in constitutional law held to temper unfair exploitation of parliamentary privilege. On 21&nbsp;July 1995 a [[libel]] case, ''[[Neil Hamilton (politician)|Neil Hamilton]], MP v [[The Guardian]]'', collapsed as the High Court ruled that the Bill of Rights' total bar on bringing into question anything said or done in the House prevented ''The Guardian'' from obtaining a [[fair trial|fair hearing]]. Hamilton could otherwise have carte blanche to allege any background or meaning to his words, and no contradicting direct evidence, inference, extra submission or cross-examination of his words could take place due to the tight strictures of the Bill of Rights. Equally, the House of Lords decided that, absent a 1996 statutory provision, the Bill of Rights' entrenched parliamentary privilege would have prevented a fair trial for Hamilton in the 2001 defamation action of ''Hamilton v Al-Fayed'' which went through the two tiers of appeal to like effect.<ref>As mentioned in {{cite BAILII
|litigants    = Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|court        = EWHC
|division     = QB
|year         = 2017
|num          = 3379 
|parallelcite = [2018] 4 WLR 48
|date         = 20 December 2017
|courtname    = auto
|juris        = auto
|para         = 11
}}</ref> That provision was section 13 of the [[Defamation Act 1996]], which permits [[Member of Parliament|MP]]s to waive their [[parliamentary privilege]] and thus cite and have examined their own speeches if relevant to litigation.<ref>{{cite news |author1=Alexander Horne |author2=Oonagh Gay |title=Ending the Hamilton Affair? |newspaper=UK Constitutional Law Association |url=http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/05/21/alexander-horne-and-oonagh-gay-ending-the-hamilton-affair/ |publisher=UK Constitutional Law Association Blog |access-date=19 March 2015 |date=21 May 2014}}</ref>

Following the [[2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum|United Kingdom European Union membership referendum]] in 2016, the Bill of Rights was cited by the Supreme Court in the [[R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union|''Miller'' case]], in which the court ruled that triggering EU exit must first be authorised by an act of Parliament, because doing so would abrogate rights secured by an Act of Parliament (namely, rights of EU citizens arising from the EU treaties given effect in UK law by the [[European Communities Act 1972 (UK)|European Communities Act 1972]], as amended).<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=R (on the application of Miller & another) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union |year=2016 |court=EWHC |num=2768 |division=Admin |date=3 November 2016}}
{{quote|This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of the [[rule of law]] in the United Kingdom. It has its roots well before the war between the Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century but was decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognised ever since. Sir Edward Coke reports the considered view of himself and the senior judges of the time in The ''[[Case of Proclamations]]'' (1610) 12&nbsp;Co. Rep.&nbsp;74, that:
{{quote|style=font-size:inherit|the King by his proclamation or other ways cannot change any part of the common law, or statute law, or the customs of the realm}}
and that:
{{quote|style=font-size:inherit|the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him.}}
The position was confirmed in the first two parts of Section&nbsp;1 of the Bill of Rights 1688:
{{quote|style=font-size:inherit|
Suspending power – That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regall authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.

Late dispensing power – That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regall authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late<!--transcription error corrected--> is illegall.}}}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Brexit court ruling: Your questions answered |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983 |access-date=4 November 2016 |work=BBC}}</ref> It was cited again by the Supreme Court in its [[R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland|2019 ruling that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful]]. The Court disagreed with the Government's assertion that prorogation could not be questioned under the Bill of Rights 1689 as a "proceeding of Parliament"; it ruled the opposite assertion, that prorogation "cannot sensibly be described as a 'proceeding in Parliament{{'"}}, as it was imposed upon and not debatable by Parliament, and could bring "core or essential business of Parliament" to an end without debate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title=R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)|date=24 September 2019|publisher=The Supreme Court|access-date=24 September 2019|quote=It must therefore follow, as a concomitant of Parliamentary sovereignty, that the power to prorogue cannot be unlimited. Statutory requirements as to sittings of Parliament have indeed been enacted from time to time, for example by the Statute of 1362 (36 Edward III c 10), the Triennial Acts of 1640 and 1664, the Bill of Rights 1688, the Scottish Claim of Right 1689, the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694, and most recently the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, section 3. Their existence confirms the necessity of a legal limit on the power to prorogue, but they do not address the situation with which the present appeals are concerned. ... The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a 'proceeding in Parliament'. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners [when performing the prorogation] are not acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen's bidding. They have no freedom of speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.}}</ref>