... Moodie as ...rules of constitutional behaviour which are considered to be binding and upon those who operate the constitution but which are not enforced by the law courts...nor by presiding officers in the House of Parliament.2 Marshall and Moodie described conventions as binding rules but in reality if the Crown wanted to exercise prerogative powers they could in any way as it would be legal. Dicey described conventions as understandings, habits or practices instead of binding rules. Both where partially correct but a constitutional convention is a non-legal rule which imposes an obligation on those bound by the convention, breach or violation of which would give rise to legitimate criticism; and that criticism would will generally take form of an accusation of 'unconstitutional conduct.'3 There are two very significant cases in relation to constitutional conventions and the Royal Prerogative. Firstly the case of Reference re Amendment of the Constitution of Canada4 ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now