It is a doctrine which is fundamental to the organization of a state, and the

concept of constitutionalism, in so far as it prescribes allocation of powers to

differing institution. In any state three fundamental bodies exist: executive,

Parliament, judiciary. There should be ideally a clear demarcation of

personnel between the institution in order none should have excess of

powers and there should be checks and balances between the institution.

However, as will be seen, there are significant departures from pure doctrine

under UK’s constitution.

Montesquieu was a French aristocrat who travelled widely in Europe and

lived in England for two years. In his book ‘the spirit of laws’ on which he

worked for those years […]

Compare this with Bagehot’s analysis. In his view, 18thc constitution was

characterised by fusion not separation of powers. With the cabinet at the

epicentre, Dicey says nothing about separation of power. Eric Barendt takes

issue with Sir Ivor […].

Adam Tomkins argued that this bipolar aspect remains a better description of

the 21st century UK constitution than Montesquieu’s executive, legislature,

and judiciary approach. Instead he proposed two pillars of Crown and

parliament, leaning each other for mutual support. He further controversially

stated that the courts are in some aspect dependent upon the Crown is some

part and the courts are not independent.

Despite the doubts that have been identified about the separation of powers,

in the case of Duport Steels Ltd (1980), Lord Diplock stated that the

Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them.

Lord Mustill in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(1993), in his dissenting judgement, showed that he was emphatic and unlike

Lord Diplock highlighted the three pillars approach. […]

To illustrate further on the British constitution rigid embracing of the doctrine

of separation of power, it is important to discuss the relationship between

parliament, the government, and the judiciary. […]