Thread by @LepaDinis

“In many cases,the common law will controul Acts of Parliament,& sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void:for when an Act of Parliament is against common right& reason,or repugnant,the common law will controul it,& adjudge such Act to be void.”

Ruling of Dr Bonham’s Case(1610)

...and in City of London v Wood (1701)
Lord Chief Justice Holt ruled that
“What my Lord Coke says in Dr. Bonham’s case... is far from any extravagancy, for it is a very reasonable and true saying, That if an Act of Parliament should ordain that the same person should be party

"...and judge, or what is the same thing, judge in his own cause, it would
be a void Act of Parliament.”
Nor can parliament complete the passage of a bill without the royal assent. The monarch, on the other hand, who is the embodiment and recognition of the country's national

sovereignty, can dissolve parliament (with or without the advice of ministers) and can withhold the royal assent. Only the sovereign can call for new elections, and only the sovereign can sign treaties, declare war and peace with foreign states. Those powers are the embodiment of

the sovereign’s supremacy over parliament.
They may, from time to time, be delegated. Because the sovereign is unconstitutionally bound to respect the provisions of the Bill of Rights, such royal prerogative now has restrictions. However, it cannot be used in an innovatory way.