R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005]

Facts

  • The applicant claimed that the Hunting Act 2004 was made unlawfully as it was not passed by the House of Lords. He claimed that the Parliament Act 1949 was unlawfully passed (also without the Lords’ approval) to allow Bills to the automatically passed after 1 year of no approval by the House of Lords

Issue

  • Was the Parliament Act 1949 lawful, and hence the Hunting Act 2004

Decision

  • Yes, claim failed

Reasoning

  • Although courts may judge whether a statute was valid by the way it was passed, the Hunting Act 2004 was passed lawfully and so was valid. The 1949 Act followed the provisions of the 1911 Act
  • Parliaments can be bound by changing requirements of form imposed by their predecessors
RELATED CASE  Beatty v Gillbanks [1882]

Posted in Public Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 31st January 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy