Sovereign immunity
Legal doctrine shielding sovereigns from suit in their own courts.
Sovereign immunity, also referred to as crown immunity, is a legal doctrine asserting that a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is thus immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly within its own courts. It is the historical predecessor of state immunity, which is a stronger doctrine applying to foreign courts. The doctrine originates from the classical concept of sovereignty: a sovereign could not be subjected to another’s jurisdiction without consent. In constitutional monarchies, the sovereign is the historical source of the authority that creates the courts; therefore, the courts, being creations of the sovereign for the protection of subjects, had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by them. This principle was encapsulated in the maxim *rex non potest peccare*, meaning "the king can do no wrong."
Sovereign immunity takes two forms: immunity from suit (or jurisdiction/adjudication) and immunity from enforcement. Immunity from suit prevents a sovereign, head of state, or the state itself from being a defendant in court proceedings or equivalent forums such as arbitration. Immunity from enforcement means that even a successful judgment against the sovereign or state may be unenforceable. Broad exceptions to immunity exist, particularly in non-totalitarian states, including statutes that expressly bind the state (such as constitutional laws) and judicial review. A state entity may waive its immunity through prior written agreement, instituting proceedings without claiming immunity, submitting to jurisdiction as a defendant, or intervening in a suit for any purpose other than claiming immunity.
In Australia, there is no automatic Crown immunity. The Australian Constitution does not establish unfettered immunity for the Crown regarding the states or the Commonwealth. Many Australian Acts, at both state and federal levels, include a section declaring whether the Act binds the Crown and in what respect. Commonwealth Acts may state that the Act binds the Crown in each of its capacities, while state Acts may extend to the Crown in all its other capacities, including the Commonwealth, subject to constitutional consistency tests. A landmark case, *Henderson v Defence Housing Authority*, established that a state law of general application could bind a Commonwealth agency, rejecting the claim of unfettered Commonwealth immunity
- field
- Legal doctrine
- known_for
- Immunity of sovereign or state from civil suit and criminal prosecution in its own courts
- forms
- Immunity from suit (adjudication) and immunity from enforcement
- waiver_methods
- Prior written agreement, instituting proceedings without claiming immunity, submitting to jurisdiction as defendant, intervening in a suit
Lore & Background
Sovereign immunity has two forms: immunity from suit, meaning a sovereign or state cannot be a defendant in court proceedings or equivalent forums such as arbitration; and immunity from enforcement, meaning even a successful judgment may lack means of enforcement. Broad exceptions exist, such as statutes that expressly bind the state and judicial review, often dictated by separation of powers or natural justice. A state entity may waive its immunity by prior written agreement, instituting proceedings without claiming immunity, submitting to jurisdiction as a defendant, or intervening in a suit for purposes other than claiming immunity. The doctrine varies by country; for example, Australia has no automatic Crown immunity, and the Australian Constitution does not establish unfettered immunity. In Canada, the common law version was inherited from British law but has been steadily reduced by statute.
Reader's Guide
Sovereign immunity is significant as a foundational legal principle that historically placed the sovereign beyond the reach of courts, reflecting the idea that the king can do no wrong. Its legacy is complex: while it protects state functions from disruptive litigation, it has been progressively limited by statutes and judicial decisions in many jurisdictions. In Australia, landmark cases like Henderson v Defence Housing Authority established that the Commonwealth cannot claim broad constitutional immunity from state legislation, developing tests to determine when state laws bind the Commonwealth. In Canada, provincial legislatures cannot bind the federal Crown, and lieutenant governors do not enjoy the same immunity as the sovereign in matters not relating to office powers. The doctrine remains a subject of legal interpretation and reform, balancing governmental authority with accountability.
Did You Know?
- Sovereign immunity is the original forebear of state immunity, based on the classical concept that a sovereign could not be subjected without approval to another's jurisdiction.
- The legal maxim 'rex non potest peccare' means 'the king can do no wrong'.
- In Australia, the High Court ruled in Henderson v Defence Housing Authority that the Commonwealth cannot claim a broad constitutional immunity from state legislation.
- In Canada, lieutenant governors do not enjoy the same immunity as the sovereign in matters not relating to the powers of the office.
More in Public Law 1-24
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record