• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Briefly summarise the appellants' key grounds of challenge and critically evaluate the respective approaches of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords to these and to the issue of the significance of the wider Parliamentary and political context.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Briefly summarise the appellants' key grounds of challenge and critically evaluate the respective approaches of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords to these and to the issue of the significance of the wider Parliamentary and political context. HUNTING ACT 2004 The Hunting Act 2004 received Royal Assent on 18 November 2004. It will come into force on 18 February 2005. Summary of the Act _ Section 1 of the Act makes it an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog unless the hunting is exempt. _ Section 2 defines exempt hunting. _ Section 3 makes it an offence for a person knowingly to permit land which belongs to him to be entered or used, or to permit a dog which belongs to him to be used, in the commission of an offence under section 1. _ Section 4 provides a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 1 to show that he reasonably believed that the hunting concerned was exempt under section 2. _ Section 5 prohibits hare coursing events. _ Section 6 provides the punishment for a person convicted of an offence under the Act which is a maximum fine of �5000. Cases can therefore only be heard summarily only. ...read more.

Middle

THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION The Appeal was dismissed and the court held that the 1949 Act and the Hunting Act are valid. The court found that the amendment made in the 1949 Act, reducing the delaying power of the lords, was 'modest' therefore, accepting the amendments made. However, the court argued that it would not be compelled to allow amendments that tried to alter the relationship set out in the 1911 Act, between the Houses of Parliament. The court gave no indications as to which amendments are acceptable, mentioning solely that the more extensive the amendments, the greater the chances that such amendments would be unacceptable. HOUSE OF LORDS LORD BINGHAM Lord Bingham disagreed with the Court of Appeal's assessment of the amendments made by the 1949 Act arguing that these were in fact extensive rather than "modest". Lord Bingham found that the Attorney General raised a valid argument in that the degree of power to amend the 1911 Act cannot depend on the dimension of the amendments made. Therefore the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords reached the same conclusions in their judgment albeit on different grounds. LORD NICHOLLS According to Lord Nicholls the 1911 Act had received consent from both Houses of Parliament and was therefore enacted. ...read more.

Conclusion

Such differing arguments reveal the wider Parliamentary and political context in the enactment of new legislation. CONCLUSION The courts' decision means that further changes to the composition and functions of the House of Lords may be achieved under Parliament Acts without the consent of the House itself. Contrary to the Court of Appeal's position, this is possible even if the changes are extensive as according to the House of Lords the reduction in the period of delaying power was of great constitutional importance. The Court of Appeal broke controversial new ground in reading the 1911 Act, giving greater authority to the House of Lords than was justified by political history. In a wider context, the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy remains unchanged however, for the first time the court appears to have checked the formal validity of enacting legislation without intervening on the substantive side. 1 Reviewed by the Administrative Court 2 Section 2(1) of the 1911 Act of Parliament 3 If a bill, having passed the House of Commons is rejected three successive times by the House of Lord and two years have passed between the date of the second reading in the House of Commons and the date when the Bill is enacted by the House of Commons, then the Bill can be enacted. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sources of Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. Parliamentary supremacy

    On the other hand, parliament still has supremacy as parliament can only change and make the legislation, not the courts.

  2. There are a number of advantages and disadvantages for law making in the Westminster ...

    It's the intense examination that a bill has to go through by the House of Commons and the by the House of Lords that ensures that errors in whatever format are highlighted swiftly and actioned as and where necessary. Law making through the English system has a lengthy process in

  1. Critically evaluate the partial defence of Provocation.

    The provocative act need not be illegal or even wrongful: in Doughty (1986), it was held that the persistent crying of a baby could amount to provocation. Mere circumstance cannot be provocation, so a novelist discovering that his/her manuscript has been eaten by a dog cannot use provocation successfully if they lashed out and killed someone.

  2. Assess the constitutional significance of the decision of the House of Lords

    The men detained were all Muslim immigrants held in Belmarsh prison in London. To pass the Act, the UK (alone amongst European states) had to withdraw from part of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) through a special derogation Order.

  1. Using Source B and your own knowledge, on what grounds has the judicial system ...

    People argue that this is too higher wage to pay for someone who just rules on other people's behalf. Judges are members of the H of L and therefore make laws They are chosen in secret by the Lord Chancellor - it is not known why he chooses certain judges.

  2. Discuss the view that all legal approaches to reducing inequalities are fundamentally flawed.

    Gender inequality goes back centuries but was never really recognised in law until the Equal Pay Act of 1970. Until this time, women had suffered a great disadvantage in the work place. In the 19th century women were excluded from certain areas of work, it was not acceptable for a woman to do certain jobs, especially in the labour market.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work