Jackson V Attorney General

Jackson V Attorney General

R (Jackson) v Attorney General UKHL 56, 1 AC 262 is a House of Lords case which contains the first obiter comments by judges acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, orthodoxly held to be unlimited in the United Kingdom.

The case, brought by Jackson and two other members of the Countryside Alliance, challenged the use of the Parliament Acts to enact the Hunting Act 2004. The appellants claimed that the Parliament Act 1911 could not be used to pass the Parliament Act 1949 which amended the 1911 Act; the Hunting Act, which was passed only in accordance with the modified as opposed to the original requirements of the Parliament Acts procedure, was therefore invalid. The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal both rejected this claim, although the Court of Appeal held that Parliament Acts procedure could not be used to effect "fundamental constitutional changes". The case was appealed again to the House of Lords. In relation to preliminary issues, the court held that it had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the Hunting Act as a question of statutory interpretation (whether the 1911 Act could be used to enact the 1949 Act); standing was not challenged. On the substantive issue, the court ruled there were no limits to the type of legislation that could be passed using the Parliament Acts except for the express limitations contained in the legislation. The Parliament Act 1949 had therefore been validly passed using the 1911 Act and the Hunting Act was consequently also held to be an Act of Parliament. In obiter comments made in the judgment, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope and Baroness Hale suggested that there might be limits to parliamentary sovereignty (although Lord Bingham and Lord Carswell impliedly supported the orthodox view that there are no limits to parliamentary sovereignty).

Jackson prompted debate about the legitimacy of limiting parliamentary sovereignty and the theoretical justifications for the ruling. Alison Young suggests that the opinions could be explained by the Parliament Act 1911 modifying the rule of recognition defining valid legal documents or by the Act redefining Parliament in a manner that binds the courts. Christopher Forsyth argues that the Parliament Acts redefined Parliament to be a bicameral body for all legislation which also has a method of unicamerally legislating (except to extend Parliament beyond five years). Jowell proposes that there are two reasons for limiting parliamentary sovereignty – if the democratic legitimacy of the legislature were undermined by its acts or if the body attempted to remove fundamental rights in a democratic society – and cites support for these arguments from the judgment. The case was also criticised for claims made by Lord Steyn and Lord Hope that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty was solely a judicial creation.