Jackson v Attorney General
| Jackson v A-G | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | House of Lords |
| Full case name | Regina (on the application of Jackson and others) v Attorney General |
| Decided | 13 October 2005 |
| Citation(s) |
|
| Transcript(s) | House of Lords transcript |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | Divisional Court ([2005] EWHC 94 (Admin)) |
| Appealed from | Court of Appeal ([2005] EWCA Civ 126, [2005] QB 579) |
| Case opinions | |
| The Parliament Act 1911 could be used to pass the Parliament Act 1949; the Hunting Act was therefore validly enacted using the Parliament Acts procedure. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | |
| Keywords | |
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the Judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom.
The case, brought by Jackson and two other members of the Countryside Alliance, challenged the use of the Parliament Acts to enact the Hunting Act 2004. The appellants claimed that the Parliament Act 1911 could not be used to pass the Parliament Act 1949 which amended the 1911 Act; the Hunting Act, which was passed only in accordance with the modified as opposed to the original requirements of the Parliament Acts procedure, was therefore invalid. The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal both rejected this claim, although the Court of Appeal held that Parliament Acts procedure could not be used to effect "fundamental constitutional changes". The case was appealed again to the House of Lords. In relation to preliminary issues, the court held that it had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the Hunting Act as a question of statutory interpretation (whether the 1911 Act could be used to enact the 1949 Act);standing was not challenged. On the substantive issue, the court ruled there were no limits to the type of legislation that could be passed using the Parliament Acts except for the express limitations contained in the legislation. The Parliament Act 1949 had therefore been validly passed using the 1911 Act and the Hunting Act was consequently also held to be an Act of Parliament. In obiter comments made in the judgment, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope and Baroness Hale suggested that there might be limits to parliamentary sovereignty (although Lord Bingham and Lord Carswell impliedly supported the orthodox view that there are no limits to parliamentary sovereignty).
...
Wikipedia