Free Essay on Critical Analysis in the Case of R.V Jackson v Attorney General

Abstract

The supremacy of the UK parliament is an important topic of concern, and it has attracted many diverse views from scholars and experts in law. The parliament has the sovereign power to make and unmake laws, and there are no other provisions in the constitution that can repeal or change the Acts of parliament. The unwritten constitutional provisions give powers to the parliament and make it hard for any other arm of the government to turn the decisions they make. The UK parliament is known as the mother of all other parliaments, and this is because it is the pioneer parliament that was used to design many others. Unlike in other countries where written constitutional provisions have complied, the UK House of Commons and House of Lords work using the unwritten laws to make reliable decisions for the country. In regards to the case of Jackson v. Attorney General, the discussion on the validity of the sovereignty of the parliament opened new views about the powers of the parliament.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Introduction

The supremacy of the United Kingdom parliament has been a topic for debate for many years. When the parliament expresses its will, there are no judicial processes that can defeat that will. The parliament remains with the absolute power to make decisions that no other arm of the government can overturn. The principle of supremacy is often highly criticized; many scholars support the need to change it and allow judicial systems to make changes to the Acts of parliament in some critical and exceptional issues. Unfortunately, the selected members of parliament jealously protect sovereignty and to allow for any possible process to dilute the supremacy. The UK parliament is respected across the world and is nicknamed "The mother of all parliaments" because of its long existence. Since the formation of the House of Lords in 1265, the parliament has played its role for a long time and has helped the country to make the decisions that have led to the current growth and development. The House of Lords is constitutes of the experienced politicians and political leaders who work with the House of Commons in making the laws. The House of Commons is responsible for the legislation, and it makes the laws for the country.

The views of A.V. Dicey, a British Whig jurist, and constitutional theorist became what is known as the traditional parliamentary theory or n the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. His views were that the parliament of the UK has the power to set or remove any laws and no other body can change these laws. The same doctrine explained that the parliament could not make laws that bound the successors. In many other countries, there is a written constitution that guides the way the parliament works. However, in the UK, parliament is the central body that makes all laws, and it is fundamental for all operations of the government., In the case of Jackson v. Attorney General, the challenge against the Hunting Act of 2004, which was passed using the changes made in the Parliament Act of 1949, was made and it was a significant step to challenging the sovereignty of the parliament,. The many changes in the political and constitutional matters have affected the sovereignty of the UK parliament, and the recent Brexit decision is one of the issues that have triggered the debates of whether the parliament still retains its independence.

In the case of defining the right affect the case of Jackson v Attorney General had upon the British constitution, we shall first explore the main principles of law; many law scholars defined the constitution to be based on certain pillars laid down by morals of society. Political leaders often debate the idea of supremacy in the British unwritten constitution and the higher courts of Law in the United Kingdom. However, the courts found existing gaps in certain aspects in many of the established legislation laid down by the British parliament. The case of Jackson V Attorney General, directly affected the constitution in significant ways, because it was the first occasion where the courts of law questioned the power and the validity of an act laid down by Parliament. Therefore raising many questions on whether the courts consume the ability to strike down valid legislation enacted by parliament without the consent of the House of Lords. In current years the terminology of the rule of law has proven to prevail and his currently a vital ingredient in most political ideas. The often admired and praised law philosopher A.V. Dicey, has provided the most logical explanation, the three principles laid by Dicey has proven to be very beneficial on modern constitutions. Dicey cited that "no man is above the law. Therefore no man can be punished or tortured, except in the case that the individual is guilty in the court of law, regardless of his position in society. In his second principle, Dicey clearly emphasizes on equality before the law. Meaning in this entire constitution the matter of fairness should be set in high regard. Secondly, this essay addresses the importance of the case Jackson v Attorney General.

Literature review

The Jackson case of Upholds the legality of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, limiting the House of Lords' legislative powers. In November 2004, the British Parliament enacted the Hunting Act which banned fox hunting, amongst other matters. While this bill gained support in the House of Commons, however, it faced a continual opposition in the House of Lords, also so the Parliament Act 1949 was adopted to counter the House of Lords' powers to delay the bill, and so it received royal assent. The applicant, Jackson, brought a claim on behalf of the Countryside Alliance and the pro-fox hunting lobby, ventured to affirm that the Hunting Act 2004 was unreasonable because the 1949 Parliament Act, Was the Parliament Act 1949 illegal, and consequently, the Hunting Act 2004 unlawful?. During first hearing and upon appeal, the Courts found for the Attorney General, confirmed the Hunting Act 2004, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 were authenticated acts. The decision was upheld on final appeal to the House of Lords. The courts further held that legislation was passed by using the devices in the Acts of Parliament are primary legislation, rather than subordinate, and thus their validity would not be impeded were the Parliament Acts unlawful. Lord Bingham, passing the leading judgment, asserted that the Parliament Acts could undoubtedly be considered 'enacted law' and as the Hunting Act, 2004 was lawfully passed it was a valid law. While parliamentary concerns ought normally to fall in Parliament's authority, Parliament could not counter to the question in the instant case. Therefore it fell to the courts to provide an interpretation and Parliaments can be bound by the procedural obligations placed upon them by previous Parliaments. In the case of Jackson v. Attorney General, the supremacy of the parliament was , and it was clear that there was a need to clarify on the powers that the parliament has and which cannot be reduced or taken away by any other arm of the government. Since then, there have been many cases related to this supremacy and how the parliament can use its powers to make decisions that cannot be overturned. The outcomes of these cases have been applied in many other cases across the world. One of the main concerns has been the validity and applicability of the Acts of Parliament and the limits that exist concerning parliament sovereignty. One of the concerns of about sovereignty is that it could be used by the parliamentarians to take away the human rights in a democratic society if the limits are not clarified. The application of Acts of Parliament to stop the unwanted acts in the society, like the hunting of the endangered species is necessary. However, there should be limits to prevent the misuse of the acts. The supremacy of the parliament has of late become a topic of significant concern during the Brexit discussions.

Discussion

Jackson v Attorney General is an instance of real sacred hugeness. Place of Lords judges was appointed the undertaking of pondering whether the Hunting Act 2004 was a legal Act of Parliament. It had been made an offense under the Act to chase wild warm-blooded creatures with mutts aside from inside controlled conditions. The Bill was forced through without the assent of the House of Lords utilizing a procedure under the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. The appellants asked for attestation from the judges that the Hunting Act was not a substantial Act of Parliament. The House of Lords declined to make the presentation, keeping up that the 1949 Act had been legitimately approved utilizing the 1911 Act and that the Hunting Act had been indeed approved using the altered procedure. The focal issue might be considered a subject of administrative understanding, explicitly, the significance and outcome of the 1911 Act. What makes Jackson momentous in any case, is the expansive scope of issues related to Parliamentary amazingness that was discussed. This discussion of the more huge issues shows that a disparity from conventional perspectives on the essentials of the UK's sacred request might pick up help in the House of Lords.

It is the dispute of this article to examinations the broad dicta for the situation, addressing academic points of view on the character of law and legal structures, to think about the effect of Jackson on matchless parliamentary quality today. One of the underlying issues for the situation was the factor of reasonability. Did the courts have the expertise to challenge the lawfulness of an Act of Parliament? It is a perceived tradition that the courts will not look behind an Act of Parliament to investigate the technique for the institution. The Attorney General picked not challenge the point, and regardless of concern, the courts acknowledged that they had purview.

The Power of Parliament and Acts

The standard idea of the power of Parliament, as verbalized by Dicey, is as per the following: First, Parliament can make/unmake any law at all In re Findlay [1985] 1 A.C. 318. Besides, nobody is skilled to set aside an Act of Parliament. In the standard thought no law, regardless of how crucial, is safe from the adjustment. His view is that 'Parliament constitutes the preeminent authoritative expert or power in the British constitution' This view, which ostensibly takes its foundations from John Austin, was that the lawmaking powers could not be taken from, or moulded by, any prevalent specialist or legal front standard. Throughout the years, certain difficulties to the universal view have created. These incorporate the position that Parliament's capacity to administer is repressed by the Treaty of Union, by the participation of the EU, and also by key standards implanted in customary law. As of late, a few journalists have contended for hypotheses of the British constitution dependent on the standard of lawfulness ('the standard of law'). It is tentatively the judgment in Jackson that means the essential unequivocal legal support of this position.