Parliamentry Sovereignty Flashcards
R.Miller v The prime minister
They ruled that the advice of the prime minister as a prerogative power was justiciable, as the court had ruled previously on the extent of such powers,
And that it prevented Parliament from fulfilling its role and therefore violated principles of parliamentary sovereignty
What does parliamentary supremacy mean?
Dicey
That parliament can make and unmake any law it so wishes
There is no body in this country which can question the supremacy of parliament
Stockdale v Hansard
Hansard published on behalf of Parliament a paper alleging that materials were being passed around Newgate prison, when sued for libel for the second time he argued that after being instructed by parliament that he published such a paper on behalf of parliamentary privilege.
The court ruled it decided the limits of parliamentary privilege, parliament of course disagreed, and passed an act.
But this created the principle that parliamentary sovereignty only applies to acts of parliament, or things clearly outlined within those acts.
Case of Proclamation 1611
The king attempted to use royal powers to create a law to make it illegal to build upon certain areas in London
this was passed on to the courts,
chief justice cook however ruled that the king cannot of his own volition do anything that would create law, rather he can only create law through the instrument of parliament as royal prerogative.
“The king has no prerogative beyond that which the law of the land allows him.”
Only Parliament can make law
Jackson v the attorney general
Jackson and 2 other members of the countryside alliance brought in front of the court challenged the government on whether the hunting act 2004 was properly made,
They argued that the parliament act 1949 was itself unlawful as it was made through the parliament act of 1911,
as the law allowed parliament to pass bills without the House of Lords if passed on 3 successive parliamentary sessions.
They argued that this was the House of Commons giving itself more power than it was given by the crown, which is therefore unlawful.
The courts believed that they could rule on this as it was a matter of statutory interpretation, in other words whether the 1911 act could be used to pass the 1949 act
The courts ruled on the side of parliament of course, with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, however the courts also discussed whether there could be limits on the sovereignty, and the fact that the parliament act may be unable to be used on acts which are of constitutional importance.
Burma oil v the lord advocate
During WW2 the British government were worried the advancing Japanese, would get control over oil reserves, and so they destroyed them.
After the war however Burma sued the government and the House of Lords ruled that the government had the complete power to take property within times of war,
however you too have a duty to compensate them. Parliament was furious however and therefore passed an act which stated nobody is allowed to get compensation
Parliament can pass acts which apply retroactively
Mortenson v Peters 1996
Prosecution of a Norwegian sailor who was sailing in international waters, under British fishing law, the act of parliament extended its land into international waters, the courts recognised that whether the law was a breach of parliamentary law was irrelevant, the courts merely interpreted the will of parliament. It is not the courts right to decide whether parliament was wrong
Parliament as far as the courts are concerned isn’t limited by international law
Madzimbamuto V. Lardner Burke 1969
The British government passed the Southen Rhodesia Act of 1965 in protest of the new Southern Rhodesia government, stating that any laws passed by such government was unlawful.
Madzimbamuto was arrested under these laws, however despite the protests from the Southen Rhodesia government who argued this violated convention as its legislating on behalf of a colony without permission, Lord Reid however stated that despite the government acting unconstitutionally, the government was not acting unlawfully due to the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Though this is debatable, for as Parliament is the ultimate sovereign power then everything it does though an act is inherently constitutional.
Parliament is unconstrained by Constitutional Convention
