Jackson v Attorney General

Public Law students will be familiar with the case of Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 , in relation to the controversial comments made concerning limitations to parliamentary supremacy. The case was brought about by Jackson and two other members of Countryside Alliance, based in London, who were outraged by the passing of the Hunting Act 2004, which bans the hunting of wild animals. They sought to challenge the use of the Parliament Act 1911 to pass the Parliament Act 1949, which was the procedural basis for enactment of the Hunting Act 2004.

Generally, 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 legislation, hence confirming the validity of the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004.

Countryside Alliance

comments powered by Disqus