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

Explain and discuss the statement in Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 W.L.R.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Public Law A Nicole Spreng Explain and discuss the statement in Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 W.L.R.: "Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the ECA. It cannot stipulate as to the manner and form of any subsequent legislation. It cannot stipulate against implied repeal any more than it can stipulate against express repeal. Thus there is nothing in the ECA which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom." Within Lord Justice Laws' judgment in Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR, many references are made to constitutional conventions, Acts and institutions such as 'Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom', and its ability or otherwise to 'bind its successors', 'implied' and 'express repeal', and the 'ECA'. Each of these terms has to be defined and explained before the statement can be properly understood and discussed. When Laws LJ refers to 'Parliament's legislative supremacy' he speaks of the constitutional principle that the legislative competency of parliament is unquestionable and unlimited. The respected legal academic, AV Dicey, explains that 'Parliament...has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and...no person or body is recognised...as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.'1 Dicey's theory is often applied by judges, and can be seen in Blackburn v. ...read more.

Middle

2) also states that '[u]nder the terms of the Act of 1972 it has always been clear that it was the duty of a United Kingdom court...to override any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of Community law.'8 However, as previously mentioned, Lord Justice Salmon maintained that Parliament 'can enact, amend and repeal any legislation it pleases',9 and like Lord Bridge, he recognised that joining the European Community was not an illegal surrender of sovereignty, because 'whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary.'10 In other words, all of the EU's powers flow from Parliament's sovereignty by way of the original Act, and thus Parliament retains ultimate sovereignty because it could repeal the original Act. Lord Justice Laws seems also have taken the stance of Lord Bridge and Salmon LJ by stating that 'Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the ECA' because they 'cannot stipulate as to the manner and form of any subsequent legislation'.11 Following Dicey's opinion that 'no person or body is recognised...as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament'12, Laws LJ further states that 'there is nothing in the ECA which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom'.13 Hence it would seem he says that the ECJ has no right to assume absolute permanent sovereignty as it tried to in Costa. ...read more.

Conclusion

The compromise has been made: the UK courts will override national law which is found to be in conflict with Community law, but that the supremacy that this law has is retractable at any point by Parliament. 1 Dicey (1898) 1959, p 39 2 Blackburn v. Attorney General [1971] 2 All ER 1380 3 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR, paragraph 59 4 Dicey (1898) 1959, p68 5 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldhansrd/vo010119/text/10119-04.htm, Lord Kingsland, [accessed 1st November 2002] 6 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR, paragraph 59 7 Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64) [1964] ECR 1125 8Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame ltd. and others (No. 2) (Case C 213/89), [1991] 1 A C 603 9 Blackburn v. Attorney General [1971] 2 All ER 1380 10 Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame ltd. and others (No. 2) (Case C 213/89), [1991] 1 A C 603 11 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR, paragraph 59 12 Dicey (1898) 1959, p 39 13 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR, paragraph 59 14 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR. Paragraph 62 15 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR. Paragraph 63 16 Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law, (Cavendish: 2002), p191 17 Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law, (Cavendish: 2002), p189 18 Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law, (Cavendish: 2002), p187 19 Thorburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] 3 WLR, paragraph 62 1 Elizabeth Mount, Group 19BS ...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. Marked by a teacher

    Critically discuss different possible meanings of justice and explore the relationship between law and ...

    3 star(s)

    In other words, people would abide by them which will create fairness within society making the outcome correct or right for society. By allowing individuals access to legal advice and representation, prevents bribery from occurring. In other words, by having someone present at the time of being questioned, the defendant could bribe public authority to acquit them.

  2. Parliamentary supremacy

    was chosen then parliamentary supremacy is still in existence, however if they were to choose EU law then parliament can not possibly be supreme. The courts chose to ignore this question for many years until the landmark case R v Secretary of State Transport ex parte Factortame2.

  1. The Land Registration Act 2002 heralds major changes to the law and procedures regarding ...

    As a result a new category of cases has arisen where the 12 years period of adverse possession was completed before 13 October 2003, but after 2 October 2000 when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. Leading the charge in this development is Nicholas Strauss QC14 in the case of Beaulane Properties Ltd v Palmer15.

  2. "In form, the Human Rights Act (HRA) is compatible with parliamentary sovereignty. In practice, ...

    the HRA has been to erode Parliamentary sovereignty to almost nothing; but the reality is more nebulous. Section 3(1) places an express statutory duty on courts to strive to interpret and give effect to legislation in a way which is compatible with Convention rights (as defined in section 1(1)), "so

  1. It could be argued that the employment tribunal system is a breach of Article ...

    unless the employee had preciously warning that the employer was "tapping" the phones. This case had significant implications concerning Article 8 and employer surveillance. Interfering with emails at work may prima facie be breaching Article 8, the only justification for this offence will be to protect others for example an offensive email which can amount to harassment.

  2. To what extent do you think these aims have been (or will be) facilitated ...

    The unregistered land system is virtually obsolete but it has played an incredibly important role in the development of registration. The registration of all land over the countries of England and Wales at once was simply an unachievable idea but through time and the help of the unregistered land system the target is close.

  1. Is the UK Parliament still supreme with regards to enacting Acts of Parliament? Discuss.

    First Reading is essentially a public announcement that the bill has been introduced; soon after the first reading has taken place, copies of the bill are available for members to read (and for the wider public to see via the Internet).

  2. Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But Parliamentary sovereignty is no ...

    F and the others sought judicial review of the act and regulations as being contrary to the EEC treaty.

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