Parliamentary Sovereignty

Professors [blank_start]Craig[blank_end] and [blank_start]Allan[blank_end] believe that [blank_start]parliamentary[blank_end] sovereignty is a construct of the [blank_start]common law[blank_end].

[blank_start]Wade[blank_end] argues that [blank_start]Parliament[blank_end] is not capable of [blank_start]imposing[blank_end] any sorts of limits on itself. Wade supports the [blank_start]orthodox view[blank_end] of [blank_start]parliamentary sovereignty[blank_end], in that the rules by which [blank_start]statutes[blank_end] are identified are beyond the reach of Parliament. When the court invoked the ECA [blank_start]1972[blank_end] to disapply the [blank_start]Merchant Shipping Act[blank_end] 1988, it became clear that Parliament had [blank_start]bound its successors[blank_end]. The language of the [blank_start]Factortame[blank_end] judgments is inconsistent with the view that the court has merely adopted a principle of [blank_start]statutory construction[blank_end] in seeking to avoid a conflict between [blank_start]English[blank_end] and EC law.

[blank_start]Barber[blank_end] says that ideas about [blank_start]parliamentary sovereignty[blank_end] are misconceived, and that it is [blank_start]no longer[blank_end] a part of the UK [blank_start]constitution.[blank_end]

[blank_start]Heuston[blank_end] supports the [blank_start]manner and form[blank_end] argument, in that Parliament could [blank_start]specify[blank_end] what would count as [blank_start]Parliament[blank_end] in future.

[blank_start]Craig[blank_end] states that by passing the [blank_start]Act of 1972[blank_end], Parliament has voluntarily accepted a limitation of its sovereignty, making it clear that Community Law must [blank_start]prevail[blank_end] in future. The HS2 case is important for [blank_start]constitutional law[blank_end] and the relationship between the [blank_start]UK[blank_end] and EU legal orders. There are two strands to the court's analysis of the [blank_start]HS2 case[blank_end]: 1. [blank_start]Judicial critique[blank_end] - voiced most strongly by Lords Mance and [blank_start]Neuberger[blank_end] - [blank_start]overly creative interpretation[blank_end]. People would not be confident that [blank_start]European law[blank_end] would be given its full, obvious effect, leading to a [blank_start]national loss[blank_end] of confidence in EU law and impair [blank_start]judicial balance[blank_end] between the ECJ and national courts. 2. [blank_start]Judicial co-operation[blank_end] - [blank_start]ECJ[blank_end] decisions should be interpreted so as to avoid [blank_start]conflict[blank_end] with national law.

Dicey's doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty has [blank_start]three limbs.[blank_end] 1. [blank_start]Positive limb[blank_end]: [blank_start]Parliament[blank_end] can make or unmake any [blank_start]law.[blank_end] 2. [blank_start]Negative limb[blank_end]: [blank_start]Nobody can question[blank_end] an Act of Parliament. 3. Theory of [blank_start]continuing sovereignty[blank_end]: No Parliament can be bound by or bind another [blank_start]Parliament.[blank_end]

Dicey's [blank_start]positive limb[blank_end] [blank_start]Mortensen v Peters[blank_end] - a [blank_start]Danish trawlerman[blank_end] was convicted of [blank_start]illegal fishing[blank_end] near Scotland. On appeal, he argued that the law [blank_start]should not[blank_end] apply to him. Held: although contrary to [blank_start]international law[blank_end], the law still applies to [blank_start]outside[blank_end] citizens. [blank_start]Cheney v Conn[blank_end] - D was a member of a [blank_start]campaign for nuclear disarmament[blank_end]. D said that British [blank_start]ownership[blank_end] and threat of the use of [blank_start]nuclear weapons[blank_end] was contrary to [blank_start]Geneva[blank_end] law, and so D refused to pay taxes. Held: [blank_start]statutes[blank_end] are the [blank_start]highest form of law[blank_end] in the UK. An [blank_start]Act of Parliament[blank_end] overrides international [blank_start]conventions.[blank_end]

Theory of [blank_start]continuing sovereignty[blank_end] [blank_start]Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool[blank_end] Corporation (1932) Ellen Street Estates v [blank_start]Minister of Health[blank_end] (1934) Which Act applied? The [blank_start]Acquisition of Land Act 1919[blank_end] or the [blank_start]Housing Act 1925[blank_end]? Held: the Housing Act 1925 because the [blank_start]later Act[blank_end] always prevails.

Doctrine of [blank_start]implied repeal[blank_end]: looking at two Acts and realising that they are [blank_start]inconsistent[blank_end]. The [blank_start]later Act[blank_end] always prevails, the earlier Act is [blank_start]repealed[blank_end]. Doctrine of express repeal: [blank_start]"The following act is hereby repealed[blank_end].

[blank_start]Laws J[blank_end] in Thorburn v [blank_start]Sunderland CC[blank_end] recognised that [blank_start]constitutional statutes[blank_end] are protected from [blank_start]implied repeal[blank_end] and can only be expressly repealed by [blank_start]intervention[blank_end] from Parliament.

The Revolution of [blank_start]1688[blank_end] was the origin of [blank_start]parliamentary sovereignty.[blank_end] Parliament was recognised for the first time as part of the [blank_start]constitutional[blank_end] structure. [blank_start]Post[blank_end] 1688, English [blank_start]parliamentary sovereignty[blank_end] became the rule. The [blank_start]power[blank_end] was taken from the [blank_start]monarch.[blank_end]

[blank_start]Jackson[blank_end] is significant, because: Supporting evidence for the [blank_start]manner and form argument[blank_end]. Obiter dicta supports the idea of [blank_start]constitutional sovereignty[blank_end], rather than [blank_start]parliamentary[blank_end] sovereignty.

[blank_start]Jackson[blank_end] per Lord [blank_start]Steyn[blank_end]: "The [blank_start]classic account[blank_end] given by Dicey of the doctrine of the [blank_start]supremacy of Parliament[blank_end] can now be seen to be out of place in the [blank_start]modern[blank_end] UK."

[blank_start]Jenning[blank_end]'s self-embracing [blank_start]sovereignty[blank_end] - Parliament can bind itself as to the [blank_start]manner and form[blank_end] in which [blank_start]legislation[blank_end] is enacted.

The [blank_start]manner and form[blank_end] argument: Parliamentary [blank_start]sovereignty[blank_end] includes the power of [blank_start]Parliament[blank_end] to bind itself as to the [blank_start]manner and form[blank_end] in which [blank_start]legislation[blank_end] is passed. It is a [blank_start]common law[blank_end] rule. The statute is [blank_start]superior[blank_end] to [blank_start]common law[blank_end]. [blank_start]Courts[blank_end] are bound to [blank_start]apply[blank_end] this rule.

[blank_start]Historical challenges[blank_end] The Union with Scotland: treaty between [blank_start]Scotland and England.[blank_end] [blank_start]Act of Union[blank_end] with England Act (1707) Act of Union with [blank_start]Scotland Act (1706)[blank_end] Only the UK Parliament could give [blank_start]freedom[blank_end] back to Scotland.

[blank_start]MacCormick[blank_end] v Lord Advocate [blank_start](1953)[blank_end] - The Queen declared herself [blank_start]Queen Elizabeth II[blank_end] in [blank_start]1952[blank_end]. C argued that she can only be Elizabeth I because [blank_start]Scotland[blank_end] have never had a [blank_start]Queen Elizabeth[blank_end], and they are part of the UK. The court [blank_start]dismissed[blank_end] this, holding that only the [blank_start]Queen[blank_end] could decide which to be herself, according to the [blank_start]Royal Prerogative.[blank_end]

[blank_start]Parliament Act 1911[blank_end] altered the ability of the House of [blank_start]Lords[blank_end] to reject Bills. They were unable to reject money [blank_start]Bills[blank_end] but could reject [blank_start]non-money Bills[blank_end]. [blank_start]Before 1911[blank_end], money Bills could be rejected. Parliament Act [blank_start]1949[blank_end] reduced the delay in power from [blank_start]2 years to 1 year.[blank_end] It was passed under the [blank_start]bypass procedure[blank_end] in the Parliament Act 1911. It allowed them to get their Bill through and [blank_start]reduced[blank_end] the delay from 2 to 1 years. PA 1949 is not a [blank_start]full[blank_end] act. It is [blank_start]delegated legislation[blank_end], therefore it is subject to [blank_start]judicial challenge.[blank_end]

[blank_start]Parliament[blank_end] = House of Lords + [blank_start]House of Commons[blank_end] + Royal [blank_start]Assent[blank_end] [blank_start]Consent[blank_end] is needed by both [blank_start]Houses[blank_end] and then the Queen must [blank_start]assent[blank_end] to remain the Queen.