Dicey defined the Royal Prerogative as “the residue of discretionary or arbitrary power legally left in the hands of the crown”. This means that powers that belong exclusively to the crown could only be considered prerogative powers. This is a set of powers that gives the Prime Minister and Government the authority and means to make important decisions without reference to Parliament. These powers were previously in the hands of the Queen, but in practice they are used by ministers and the cabinet. Historically this prerogative was used to create treaties and deploy armed forces. The powers also concern the appointment and dismissal of ministers and public administration officials. With the Prerogative the Prime Minister can dissolve a parliament, declare war and call elections. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Historically, when the death penalty existed, the royal prerogative of mercy allowed ministers to pardon the condemned, whereas now it only allows the modification of sentences. In the Case of Proclamations (1610), Lord Coke states that the king has no power to introduce new offenses or alter the common law, however, he can only exercise the prerogative powers granted by the courts. Then the courts have the power to declare whether such prerogative power exists and how much power is used by the monarch, demonstrating that the fundamental rule of prerogative power is in the hands of the courts. Prerogative powers have changed through legislation. Some of them have today been replaced by statuary powers. According to Royal Hotel Ltd (1920) of AG v De Keyser, when statuary and prerogative powers coincide, the crown is unable to exercise the prerogative power. It was held that less money could not be paid under the prerogative powers as the law would always prevail over the prerogative powers. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Fire Brigade's Union Ex Parte (1995), the Home Secretary refused to choose a time to implement part of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Home Secretary 'Interno has implemented a replacement scheme with prerogative powers. This demonstrated that the Home Secretary acted illegally as he was not allowed to refuse to fully implement the legislation. Each of the executive, legislative and judicial bodies has its own domain which guarantees separation. So if a statutory scheme exists, the prerogative cannot choose to replace it. The courts have no power to regulate how prerogatives are exercised, however the extent of the powers is in the hands of the courts, as stated by Lord Coke. In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] it was recognized that judicial review could apply to the exercise of prerogative powers. While prerogative powers may be subject to judicial review, there are some exceptions, for example if the power is used to protect national security as in this case. Furthermore, a decision that defies logic or moral standards can be repressed. The prerogative power to issue passports is verifiable by the courts. R v Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p Everett (1985) supported the GCHQ case and demonstrated that executive prerogative power is subject to judicial review. Formal declarations of war were historically the standard, but are now considered unfashionable, this power includes the deployment of armed forces in a foreign conflict. It is a prerogative power, so the choice rests with the crown rather than the monarch..