Essay Important Cases Flashcards
R (Jackson) v AG
- Limited PS by allowing judges to question the validity of an act when it involved fundamental constitutional rights.
Breakdown:
- Claim: HA 2004 unlawful, as it was passed under PA 1949 which was also unlawful.
- Lord Steyn
- PS is a construct of Common Law (RoL supreme if necessary)
- Entrenchment possible “Parliament can bind successor”
- Lord Hope:
- “PS no longer, if ever, absolute.”
- “RoL is ulimate controlling factor upon which constitution is based:
- “PS means Parliament cannot bind successor”
- Lady Hale
- Entrenchment possible through majority requirement or referrendum
Parliament Acts 1911/1949
Increased PS as allows for HC (elected) to exert supremacy over HL.
Details:
- Money Bills start in HC and receive RA one month after being introduced in HL even if HL has not passed them.
- 1911: HL can delay non-money bills by 2 years
- 1949: HL can delay bills by only 1 year. Controversial as never approved by HL (passed using PA 1911).
Manner & Form: If Parliament can make it easier to pass a bill by removing power from HL, can it also be made difficult for future parliament (entrenchment)
Salisbury Convention
CC that HL will not oppose to 2nd or 3rd reading of legislation promised in election manifesto.
British Railways Board v Pickin
Concluded that judges can only INTERPRET of Acts of Parliament not question their VALIDITY.
Notes:
- upheld PS
- Dicey
- Only Parliament can make/unmake law
- Parliament cannot bind successors
- Dicey
European Communities Act 1972
Constrained powers of parliament thereby limiting PS
Human Rights Act 1998
Constrained powers of parliament thereby limiting PS
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
- Created Supreme Court
- Lord Chancellor no longer head of Judiciary
- Law Lords no longer speak in HoL Debates
- Limited their role to Judicial only, prior boh J/L
Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011
- Replaced some Political CC, updating and providing clarity
- PM could choose when to dissolve parliament through Queen (RP) but now codified in Act.
Scotland Act 1998, 2016
Gave constitutional power away during independence
- Note: Political aspects through Sewell CC (Westminster cannot legislate for Scotland)
Canada Case
PM tried to alter constitution without provincial approval, courts decided it was though not illegal but unconstitutional by convention.
Sewel Convention
CC that, after devolution, Westminister will not legislate for Scotland without approval.
Individual Ministerial Responsibility
Accountability and responsibility of government ministers
- Ministers:
- Accountable to Parliament
- Responsible for their Department
- EXAMPLES:
Collective Ministerial Responsibility
Effectiveness and confidence of government as a whole
- Cabinet:
- Allows for confidential debates
- Established united front (Unanimity)
- Creates Parliamentary/Public confidence in government
- Example:
- No confidence motions (1979/1924x2) ?
Limits to Individual Ministerial Responsibility
As government has grown, convention has changed from honour where they only resigned upon mistakes made by themselves or their departments to know if they only had knowledge of the policy failing.
Limits To Collective Ministerial Responsibility
Diluted in recent times compared to what it once was.
- Confidentiality time period not as long as it once was (AG v Jonathan Cape aka Diaries)
- Can be disapplied (2016 EU Referendum)
- BUT still enforces unity when communication has new reporting has evolved through tech.
