• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8

Parliamentary Supremacy

Extracts from this document...


The Supremacy of Parliament is still relevant and evident today as it was when A. V. Dicey wrote' the Law of the Constitution' in 1885. Discuss this proposition in light of any developments in the United Kingdom constitution. A.V. Dicey described Parliamentary Supremacy also referred to as sovereignty, in the 'Law of the Constitution, 1885' as meaning; 'Neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside legislation of Parliament1. From this three rules can be extracted. Firstly, parliament is the supreme law making body and may enact laws on any subject matter; secondly, no parliament may be bound by a predecessor or bind a successor; and finally no person or body, including a court of law may question the validity of parliament's enactments2. If all three rules are apparent within Parliament, then following Dicey's view there is legal sovereignty. Nevertheless, Dicey did acknowledge that Political sovereignty wasn't held by Parliament, but in fact lay 'with the people'3, and that there may be political restraints that inhibit the exercise of parliamentary power. ...read more.


However, it has been regarded as 'inapplicable' by some senior judges as in the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002)15, when dealing with 'statutes of major political importance', for example the ECA 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998)16. There is a debate over the Acts of Union, and their effect on parliamentary sovereignty. Professor JDB Mitchell reflected on Article 1 of the Act of Union with Scotland Act 1706 that stated that England and Scotland will 'for ever after be united'. Mitchell argued that this meant that new parliaments were 'born unfree' as the Acts of Union form a 'higher law' which binds and limits the powers of parliament17. However, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706 has changed several times, in particular through religious pressures. The Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 has been altered significantly with the introduction of new acts 'to reflect greater religious toleration'18. Similarly the Act of Union with Ireland 1800 was declared to 'last forever', although in 1949 independence was granted to southern Ireland, but the UK retained Northern Ireland as part of 'His Majesty's dominions'19. The third rule that, no person or body, including a court of law may question the validity of parliament's enactment's, essentially means that ...read more.


However it has become established as a 'yardstick against which all actions of government may be judged'29. Nonetheless, the Act was passed by Parliament, therefore by a simple majority vote it can just as easily be repealed or amended. It would seem that there have been many changes within Parliament that have been said to nullify Dicey's view of Parliamentary Supremacy, such as devolution, the ECA 1972 and HRA 1998. However by looking at the creation of these acts, it is said that as Parliament has signed up to them it can therefore remove itself, legally, clearly following Dicey's first rule that Parliament can make and unmake any law. One of the prerequisites for the devolution of Scotland is that UK Parliament can make law for Scotland, and the Acts of Union, although believed to be binding, have been amended several times, therefore still complying with Dicey's second rule. The HRA 1998 only places an obligation on Parliament, of which there is no legal requirement to follow. Therefore if Parliament legislates contrary to Community Law, the judges have to follow it, thus following Dicey's third rule of Parliament being unquestionable. Conclusively, although Parliamentary supremacy has developed and changed, it is still as legally relevant now as it was when A.V. Dicey wrote 'the law of the constitution' in 1885. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree English Legal System 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 University Degree English Legal System essays

  1. Parliamentary Sovereignty

    are simply heeding Parliament's intention - as expressed in the legislation which facilitated British membership of the Community - that European law should take priority.'26 It is also possible to present a case that recognises the erosion of political sovereignty, in view of the Factortame debate.

  2. There is nothing in any way novel in according supremacy to the rules of ...

    It was held that "the function of the court was to consider and apply the enactments of Parliament...it was not lawful to impugn the validity of a statute..."7. It is believed that, should the courts take the position of assessing the quality and validity of legislation, an undesirable schism would be created between the legislative and judiciary parties.

  1. Parliamentary sovereignty

    However, section 19 statements do not bind courts to conclude that the legislation concerned is compatible, nor do they have persuasive authority (R v A (No. 2) [2002] 1 AC 45 at 75, para. 69, per Lord Hope of Craighead).

  2. Discuss the extent to which the doctrines of direct effect and supremacy can be ...

    This contrasts with the horizontal direct effect that a regulation has. The case that illustrates this is the case of Marshall v Southamption AHA. Here Miss Marshall could not use national law as she was suing her employer (private firm).

  1. Where judges do not follow precedent (or where they distinguish binding cases on dubious ...

    a case pending a decision of the House of Lords on a point of law on which the Court of Appeal had already given a binding ruling. Hirst LJ quoted with approval a dictum of Evershed MR almost fifty years earlier, that if an important case is known to be

  2. Assess the impact that Britain's union with Europe has had on the Doctrine of ...

    cannot pass any legislation that would in future conflict with any proposed EU legislation. Lastly and perhaps most importantly according to the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the UK courts are not competent to question an act of Parliament. Is that fact true today though ?

  1. The Uk’s Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty Is a Relic of the Past and Has ...

    This theory received judicial confirmation by Lord Reid in Madzimbamuto v Larder -Burke (1969)14 "It is often said that it would be unconstitutional for the UK Parliament to do certain things...but that does not mean it is beyond the power of parliament to do such things.

  2. The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of the ...

    Thus, the Human Rights Act (HRA) was drafted with it receiving formal consent in 1998 and being enforced in 2000. The Act since its enforcement has invoked contradictory views. Supporters of the HRA such as the then Home Secretary of the UK Jack Straw have hailed the HRA as the

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