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

Parliamentary supremacy

Extracts from this document...


The legal doctrine of the legislative supremacy of parliament had been discussed by many constitutional writers including AV Dicey a notably constitutional writer. Leading from his work there are 3 tests to assess the existence of parliamentary supremacy, firstly, Parliament is a supreme law making body and may enact laws on any matter; secondly, no parliament may be bound by its predecessor or bind a successor; and finally no person or body including a court of law may question the validity of Acts of Parliament. Therefore for Parliamentary supremacy to be still in existence the three tests should be satisfied. However there are many arguments suggesting that the developments in the UK constitution, including Devolution and British membership to the European Union show the erosion of parliamentary supremacy to a point where it is no longer as Jennings defines 'the dominant characteristic of the British constitution'. Devolution is a process that delegates power from a central to regional units. It has been defined as 'the delegation of central government without the relinquishment of sovereignty'1. The UK's devolution settlement is often described as having an asymmetric structure as many of the differences between Acts are almost greater than the similarities. ...read more.


Factortame, a Spanish fishing company appealed against the restrictions that the UK government placed upon them by the Merchant Shipping Act 1998 in UK courts. In 1990, as legally required the House of Lords ruling that they did not have the power to suspend Acts was referred to the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice ruled that national courts could ignore laws which contravened EU law. Therefore, the House of Lords ruled in favour of Factortame and the Merchant Fishing Act 1988 was struck down. This case clearly shows erosion of Parliamentary supremacy as the English Law courts have not acted in favour of a law created by Parliament. However we can interpret this in two ways, firstly as not being evidence of the fragmentation of parliamentary supremacy as parliament could repeal the European communities act. Although this is unlikely to happen as it would result in a loss of political sovereignty. For the UK to leave the EU it would be complex, economically damaging and ruin the reputation of UK within Europe. Secondly, this case is evident in showing that there is fragmentation of parliamentary supremacy, it is not the all powerful institution it was prior to joining the European Union. ...read more.


This is emphasised by Lord Nicholls in the case of Re v S7 'Interpretation of statutes is a matter for the courts; the enactment of statutes, are matters for Parliament'. In conclusion there is more evidence to show that parliamentary supremacy is being fragmented mainly through membership to the European Union. As discussed there is both evidence to satisfy and conflict the three tests for Parliamentary Supremacy. However, it can still be argued that Parliament is still a supreme body as it has the power to repeal an Act of Parliament or against the European Communities Act 1972. Leaving the European Union would be immensely damaging to the political status of the UK As recent reports suggest proposals for pan- European crimes would mean: 'that for the first time in legal history, a British government and Parliament will no longer have the sovereign right to decide what constitutes a crime and what the punishment should be'8 Prior to these legal developments it was argued in political science if parliamentary supremacy was split in to legal and political supremacy; legal supremacy has not been lost as Parliament retains all its theoretical powers. However, the recent developments that continue to diminish 'the right to make or unmake any law whatever' Dicey's concept of Parliamentary supremacy is undoubtedly weakening. ...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. Is the UK Parliament still supreme with regards to enacting Acts of Parliament? Discuss.

    Report Stage, when the House as a whole reviews the amendments made (and those rejected) by the Committee and accepts or reverses the Committee's decisions. The Report Stage is normally followed immediately by the Third Reading, in which the final version of the bill as amended is approved and passed on to the other House.

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

    other established techniques, such as the golden rule or mischief rule, if those techniques would produce a Convention-compatible outcome (Loveland, 2003). More broadly construed, section 3 might be taken as requiring courts to embrace a teleological or purposive approach to interpretation in the sense advocated by Lord Denning in Magor

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

    buying and selling land bringing with it greater transparency to chains of transactions, which is currently a major source of difficulty for buyers and sellers under the current Act. Land just like other areas of trade was in desperate need of modernising its old paper-based system.

  2. Statutory Interpretation

    The mischief rule is similar to the purposive approach, so it is not an entirely alien concept for UK judges. This approach was formally acknowledged in Pepper v Hart (1992) which also indicated that Hansard, the record of debates in Parliament, can be consulted when a case is in court.

  1. Discuss whether incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the domestic legislation ...

    Art 13; the right to an effective domestic legal remedy in the event of breach of the Convention rights/freedoms. This was not incorporated, as it was believed that the ECHR and HRA provided for this just by being in existence.

  2. Statutory interpretation

    (c)The mischief rule was set out in (Heydon's Case, 1584), it consists of four main principles. Firstly, what was the common law before the making of the act? Secondly, what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?

  1. How has the European Court of Human Rights contributed to the protection of children's ...

    United Kingdom68 interpreted Art. 8 creatively to guarantee procedural fairness, requiring child' empowerment to influence decisions directly. In Munro v. UK69, this entailed state obligation to provide solicitor for child in any serious application. This compulsory measure complies with Art. 12 UNCRC. In UK, however, one commentator states that unfortunately such Art.

  2. Outcome (3): Analyse the provisions relating to the police powers of arrest, search, seizure, ...

    Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act gives a police constable the power to acquire a search warrant. They can only do so if a serious arrestable offence has been committed and they have reasonable grounds for

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