8. The Sovereignty of Parliament

  • The legislative supremacy of Parliament is a jurisdictional question: Parliament has unlimited power to make and unmake laws, once the courts have determined that a bill has become an Act of Parliament, they have no jurisdiction to override it or set it aside.
  • Courts may be willing to exercise their jurisdiction to interpret statutes more generously.
  • Although any legislative provision may be expressly repealed by Parliament, the courts have jurisdiction to determine whether an Act of Parliament is a constitutional statute and immune from the common law doctrine of implied repeal.
  • The Human Rights Act 1998 requires the courts to interpret statutes in a way which is consistent with Convention rights and enables the High Court in England and Wales to make declarations of incompatibility.
  • The effect of s 2(1) and (4) European Communities Act 1972 is that the provisions of subsequent statutes are enacted without prejudice to the directly enforceable European Union rights of nationals of any member state of the EEC.
  • Substantive European Union rights prevail over the express terms of any domestic lawa, including primary legislation, made or passed after the coming into force of the 1972 Act, even in the face of plain inconsistency between the two.
Entrenchment Clauses and Prospective Formulae
  • Entrenchment clauses and prospective formulae are statutory provisions which aim to protect an Act of Parliament from amendment or repeal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Criminal Law Cases

Case Name / Relevancy / Facts / Held Airedale NHS v Bland [1993] Actus Reus: Medical Treatment Doctors were granted approval to remove the feeding tube of Bland who had been left in a vegetative state after an injury suffered by the Hillsborough disaster. It was lawful to withhold life-extending treatment as the doctors have a duty to act in the best interests of their patients. R v Kimsey (1996) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D admitted engaging in a chase but not to trying to overtake just before the accident which left Osbourne dead. The dangerous driving did not have to be considered a ‘substantial’ cause of death but rather a cause of death which was sufficient to convict D. R v Dalloway (1847) Actus Reus: Legal Causation D was not holding on to the reins on a horse and cart which resulted in a child running out into the road was killed by one of the wheels. D was charged for driving in a negligent fashion and causing the death of the c
Read more

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more

According to the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018, all recent refugees arriving in the UK seeking asylum are to be kept detained until their claims are processed and it can be ascertained that they do not pose a terrorist threat. The local detention centres are run by a private firm, ‘Home Away from Home.’ Estela, a recently arrived asylum seeker has been detained in one of the privately run facilities, and has had her room searched regularly by ‘Home Away from Home’ private security guards in case she has any contraband in her possession. As she has to wait outside while they are searching her room, Estela fears that the security guards may go through her private correspondence whilst searching. Advise Estela on any claims she may make on the grounds of the HRA 1998, including reference to any procedural requirements. [Note: This is a hypothetical scenario and the Terrorism and Immigration Act 2018 is not real legislation.]

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. Estela could argue that these actions were illegal under Article 5 and 8. Estela has sufficient interest in the matter so therefore fulfills this requirement. This Act breaches Convention rights, as the public authorities must act fairly and without bias. Estela could therefore seek judicial review under procedural impropriety, and that the Act is therefore unlawful.
Read more