R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56

Facts: PA 1911 removed veto power of HL but max delay time is 2 years. PA 1949 passed using procedure in PA 1911, amended from 2 years to 1 yr. Before 1911 (common, lord and queen need to approve). 1911 - if house of lords rejects and delay the law for 2 years, house of commons can take to the stage of royal assent itself, HoL no longer can veto the passing of a bill. HoL consented. 1911 act - passed properly (parliamentary sovereignty is more democratic) 1949 act - limit the time from 2 to 1 year, using 1911 act procedures hunting act passed with 1949 act.

Held: Both Parliament Act of 1949 and Hunting Act 2004 were held to be valid. 1911 procedure can be used to pass primary legislation. Parliament can change the procedure of future parliament and bind future parliament. Some argue that the PA 1949 is a secondary legislation and PA 1911 introduced a procedure for secondary legislation - this is rejected by the court. PA1949 is a primary legislation.

Lord Hope: "the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based"

Lord Steyn: “...in exceptional circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary role of the courts, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of a complaisant House of Commons cannot abolish.” [102] - Concerned by executive’s dominance in the Commons, executive could abuse PA process to avoid electoral accountability. Legal writer, Allan criticised Lord Steyn for being “unable to perceive that the RoL imposed limits on PS as a matter of constitutional principle”.

Lady Hale: Remarks placed emphasis on principle of legality.

💡 LevelUpLaw: This case introduced limitations to parliamentary sovereignty, suggesting that courts could strike down Acts that conflict with the rule of law.