This question matters because, every so often, someone insists that a particular law, policy, or government action “violates Magna Carta”, as if the mere invocation of 1215 could halt a 21st-century legal process. Symbolically, the Charter still carries enormous weight. But symbolism is not the same as enforceable law. So, what is its actual legal relevance?
When King John, nicknamed “Lackland” for good reason, affixed his seal to the Charter in 1215, he conceded something unprecedented: the king was not above the law. His power could be limited, defined, and restrained. This was not the first time an English monarch had been challenged, of course. John’s father, Henry II, had famously clashed with the Church in his attempt to bring clergy under royal jurisdiction. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury and once Henry’s close friend, successfully resisted that intrusion into ecclesiastical authority.
Henry II also laid the foundations of what we now call English common law—an enduring legal tradition that would outlast kings, dynasties, and empires. But even under Henry, the monarch’s power was not legally constrained. It was only with John’s reluctant agreement at Runnymede that the principle of lawful limits on royal authority became explicit.
From that perspective, Magna Carta retains profound historical relevance. It marks the moment the English legal tradition formally acknowledged that rulers could be bound by law. The ultimate test of that principle came centuries later, during the reign of Charles I, when the question of whether the king was subject to law was answered not by negotiation but by civil war and execution.
But what about the rest of Magna Carta—the famous clauses about justice, due process, property rights, and the liberties of “free men”? Can any of these provisions be invoked today in a New Zealand courtroom? Do they carry legal force, or are they simply constitutional ancestors whose descendants have long since taken their place?
That is the real question: is Magna Carta a living legal instrument, or merely a historical symbol? And if it is only symbolic, why does it continue to be invoked as though it were still binding?
When King John, nicknamed “Lackland” for good reason, affixed his seal to the Charter in 1215, he conceded something unprecedented: the king was not above the law. His power could be limited, defined, and restrained. This was not the first time an English monarch had been challenged, of course. John’s father, Henry II, had famously clashed with the Church in his attempt to bring clergy under royal jurisdiction. Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury and once Henry’s close friend, successfully resisted that intrusion into ecclesiastical authority.
Henry II also laid the foundations of what we now call English common law—an enduring legal tradition that would outlast kings, dynasties, and empires. But even under Henry, the monarch’s power was not legally constrained. It was only with John’s reluctant agreement at Runnymede that the principle of lawful limits on royal authority became explicit.
From that perspective, Magna Carta retains profound historical relevance. It marks the moment the English legal tradition formally acknowledged that rulers could be bound by law. The ultimate test of that principle came centuries later, during the reign of Charles I, when the question of whether the king was subject to law was answered not by negotiation but by civil war and execution.
But what about the rest of Magna Carta—the famous clauses about justice, due process, property rights, and the liberties of “free men”? Can any of these provisions be invoked today in a New Zealand courtroom? Do they carry legal force, or are they simply constitutional ancestors whose descendants have long since taken their place?
That is the real question: is Magna Carta a living legal instrument, or merely a historical symbol? And if it is only symbolic, why does it continue to be invoked as though it were still binding?
Which Clauses of Magna Carta Are Still “On the Books” in New Zealand?
New Zealand does still retain part of Magna Carta as active law, but only a very small part.
According to both Te Ara: Encyclopedia of New Zealand and academic legal analysis, only one clause of Magna Carta (the 1297 statutory version) remains part of New Zealand law[i].
The One Clause Still in Force
The Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 reviewed all inherited English statutes and explicitly preserved only a single surviving section of Magna Carta 1297.
That clause is the famous due‑process provision:
“No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.[ii]”
This is the modern statutory form of Clause 29 of the 1297 reissue (itself a consolidation of clauses 39 and 40 of the 1215 Charter).
In short:
- Only one clause remains in law
- It protects due process, access to justice, and freedom from arbitrary punishment
- It is preserved because it expresses a foundational rule‑of‑law principle still relevant to modern jurisprudence
Everything else — all the medieval detail about fish weirs, riverbanks, feudal reliefs, wardships, weights and measures, London customs, and baronial enforcement — has no legal force in New Zealand today.
As the Canterbury Law Review notes:
“Formally only one section of Magna Carta 1297 remains part of the law of New Zealand.”
The rest survives only as:
- historical influence,
- constitutional symbolism, and
- a rhetorical touchstone for rule‑of‑law arguments.
Why People Still Invoke Magna Carta Anyway
Even though only one clause is legally active, Magna Carta remains:
- a constitutional icon,
- a symbol of limits on power,
- and a cultural shorthand for “the government can’t just do whatever it wants.”
How New Zealand Courts Interpret the Surviving Clause of Magna Carta
New Zealand courts treat the surviving clause of Magna Carta with respect, but not with mysticism. It is not a free-standing constitutional super‑weapon. It is interpreted as a statutory affirmation of due process, sitting alongside modern legislation rather than above it.
Te Ara makes clear that the preserved clause — the famous guarantee that no one shall be imprisoned, dispossessed, or denied justice except “by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” — remains part of New Zealand law through the ImperialLaws Application Act 1988[iii].
Here’s how courts actually use it:
1. Magna Carta Is Treated as Ordinary Statute Law — Not a Higher Constitutional Code
New Zealand courts consistently reject the idea that Magna Carta has some special, entrenched or superior status. It is not a “fundamental law” that overrides Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty remains absolute.
This aligns with the Te Ara explanation that New Zealand has not given courts the power to strike down Acts of Parliament, even when rights are implicated.
So, the clause is binding, but only within the normal hierarchy of statutes.
2. Courts Use It as a Historical Anchor for Due Process Principles
Judges often cite Magna Carta to emphasise the heritage of fair trial rights, natural justice, and access to the courts. It is a symbolic and interpretive aid, not a standalone source of new rights.
Modern due‑process protections come primarily from:
- the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
- the Criminal Procedure Act 2011
- the common law of natural justice
3. Courts Reject Attempts to Use Magna Carta as a Defence Against Modern Statutes
As the case‑law survey in the search results notes, litigants sometimes try to use Magna Carta to argue that:
- taxation is unlawful
- government agencies lack authority
- criminal charges are invalid
- modern statutes violate “ancient rights”
Why? Because:
If a modern statute conflicts with Magna Carta, the modern statute prevails: Parliamentary sovereignty.
The courts have no power to resurrect medieval rights against clear legislation.
4. The Clause Still Has Real Legal Force — But Only Within Its Narrow Scope
The surviving clause is still enforceable where it aligns with modern law. For example:
- unlawful detention
- denial of access to the courts
- procedural unfairness
- arbitrary State action
Magna Carta is the ancestor, not the controlling authority.
5. Courts Treat It as a Constitutional Symbol, Not a Constitutional Weapon
Judges often acknowledge its cultural and historical importance. As the search result notes, many New Zealanders view Magna Carta through the lens of its mythology — a symbol of liberty and the rule of law.
Courts respect that symbolism, but they do not allow it to override:
- statute
- precedent
- or the structure of New Zealand’s constitutional order
Magna Carta is honoured, not obeyed.
Summary: How NZ Courts Interpret Magna Carta Today
[i] Law | Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] The Utility of a Medieval Charter in New Zealand Litigation: The Case of the Magna Carta | Springer Nature Link (formerly SpringerLink)
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.