Yes, I can wait a bit. Many thanks for your efforts. I do appreciate this is a somewhat obscure area of law and the answer is not readily obvious!
That's OK. Please keep trying. The question appears to require the combined expertise of someone who is both a criminal and a constitutional lawyer - a rare animal! I suspect that if you asked a criminal lawyer and a constitutional lawyer separately you might well get contradictory answers! I am aware this is not an easy one so I am quite prepared to wait.
Thanks for your help. However I remain a little confused. Please see the following extract from a Wikipedia article on Crown Immunity in the UK :
"Historically, the general rule in the United Kingdom has been that the Crown has never been able to be prosecuted or proceeded against in either criminal or civil cases. The only means by which civil proceedings could be brought were:
The position was drastically altered by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which made the Crown (when acting as the government) liable as of right in proceedings where it was previously only liable by virtue of a grant of a fiat. With limited exceptions, this had the effect of allowing proceedings for tort and contract to be brought against the Crown. Proceedings to bring writs of mandamus and prohibition were always available against ministers, because their actions derive from the royal prerogative.
Criminal proceedings are still prohibited from being brought against the UK government unless expressly permitted by Crown Proceedings Act"
Are you saying this is all completely wrong, and that Ministers of the Crown, acting as such in their official capacity, can be prosecuted for acts done in that capacity just the same as anyone else?