R (Jackson) v Attorney General
R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the Judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is 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 this Act was invalid as it had been passed using a legislative procedure introduced by the Parliament Act of 1949 which allowed Acts of Parliament to be passed without the consent of the House of Lords if they had been delayed by that chamber for a year. This claim was based on the argument that the enactment of the Parliament Act of 1949 was itself invalid, as it had been passed using a similar procedure introduced by the Parliament Act of 1911.

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). Jeffrey 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.
Q1058404
House of Lords
Concept
Q265638
obiter
Concept
Q1813642
parliamentary sovereignty
UNK
Q7139084
unlimited in the United Kingdom
UNK
Q1137257
Countryside Alliance
ORG
Q1414408
Parliament Acts
EVE
Q1638187
Hunting Act 2004
EVE
Q7138903
Parliament Act of 1949
LOC
Q4677783
Acts of Parliament
TIME
Q15080258
Parliament Act of 1911
EVE
Q5284586
Divisional Court
UNK
Q1137751
Court of Appeal
MEDIA
Q471855
jurisdiction
Concept
Q779439
statutory interpretation
Concept
Q683979
standing
Concept
Q49371
legislation
Concept
Q1076579
Act of Parliament
TIME
Q1537073
Lord Steyn
PER
Q764939
Lord Hope
PER
Q908568
Baroness Hale
PER
Q2424692
Lord Bingham
PER
Q655406
Lord Carswell
PER
Q7378972
rule of recognition
UNK
Q189445
bicameral
Concept
Q140247
unicamerally
Concept
Q7278173
R (Jackson) v Attorney General
EVE
2004-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
2004
DATE
1949-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1949
DATE
1949-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1949
DATE
1911-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1911
DATE
1911-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1911
DATE
1949-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1949
DATE
1949-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1949
DATE
1911-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1911
DATE
1911-01-01T00:00:00Z^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
1911
DATE
+2005^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal
2005
NUMBER
+56^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal
56
NUMBER
court
publication date
instance of
publication date