1. Overview of Topic
This paper aims at discussing the question of the sovereignty of the British Parliamentary system based on the outcome of Jackson v. Attorney General 2005.According the constitutional provisions of the British legislative system there lacks a clear line between the extent of interference between the House of Lords and that of the House of Commons. The ruling of Jackson v. Attorney General 2005 supports this hypothesis based on the structure of arguments presented by the Jury in giving the verdict of this case. This paper intends to use the outcome of this case to determine whether the British Constitution is based and founded on the basis of the British Rule of Law both in theory and in practice.
First of all, it is important to have a background of the matters of law that were under contention with Jackson v. Attorney General 2005.This case was meant to overturn the Hunting Act of 2004 that allowed the use of dogs in hunting if small animals like hares and foxes using dogs. Due the fact that many country men found dog hunting as a recreational activity and a source of food in some cases they lobbied the House of Commons to defend their interests. However, the House of Lords was for the idea of terminating dog hunting. Therefore, the House of Lords opposed the interests of the House of Commons.
Jackson v. Attorney General attained constitutional significance because the matter of law under controversy was the extent to which the House of Lords would control the House of Commons through the bills that they pass in parliament. The question of parliamentary sovereignty brought about the conflict in the understanding and interpretation of both the 1911 Act and the one passed in 1949
I. Background
This paper addresses the question of Parliament sovereignty based on the ruling of the landmark case of Attorney General v. Jackson (2005). The key constitutional question within this case was whether two statutes within the British Constitution were legitimate. These statutory provisions were the Parliament Act of 1949 and the Hunting Act which was passed in 2004. This discusses and analyses the constitutional questions that emanate behind the decision in Attorney General v. Jackson 2005 with the question of parliamentary sovereignty being the central concern.
II. Introduction
Jackson v. Attorney General (2005) is a landmark case in Britain’s political sphere. Unlike other cases this case hand an embank sitting where nine judges instead of the normal five sat in the hearing of this case. The plaintiff in this case argued that the Hunting Act of 2004 was a legitimate statutory provision that required legislative recognition. The provisions of the Hunting Act of 2004 made it illegal to hunt small wild mammals using dogs. However, this Act was specifically meant to protect the wild fox from dog hunting. In fact, the banning of fox hunting was one of the aims of the then incumbent Labor Party government during it’s the general elections held in the country in 2001(White, 2001, 89). Though the incumbent government saw the hunting Act as a noble idea, the House of Lords were highly opposed to this statute. The House of Lords used the 1911 Act to support their standpoint on the statutory law. On the other hand, the House of Commons justified their position pertaining to the Hunting Act of 2004 based on the 1946 Act which limited the control of the House of Lords on the House of Commons.
III. 1911 Act v.s 1946 Parliamentary Act
Though both the 1911 and the 1946 Act draw from the same foundation, they have conflicting provisions. First of all, the original intent of passing the Parliamentary Act of 1911 was to regulate the amount of power that the House of Lords possessed in relation to the House of Commons. The parliamentary system that existed in Britain prior to the establishment of these two statutes created an equal participation between the House of Commons and Lords in the enactment of laws. However the 1911 dissolved this equality by giving the House of Commons more control over the law making procedure. The 1911 Parliamentary Act increased the control of the House of Lords by giving authority to ignore unsolved house bills for two years in case they were not in favor of the bills.(Jago, 2011, p. 445).However, the statutory provision took into consideration that any financial budgeting and Structuring was predominantly in the hands of the House of Lords. In fact, the 1911 statute increased the time for any monetary detailing in the House of Lords from one year to about 60 months.
On the other the 1946 Act worked to bring back the parliamentary sovereignty of the House of Commons by cutting the authorized delay time of the House of Commons to one year. However, the protocol used in the passing of this law was not accepted by the House of Lords Stand of the Appellant (Jackson)
Jackson the appellant in this case held that the 1911 Act could not use the same tool of amending the 1949 Act. He therefore argued that 1949 Act was not a legitimate statute due to the procedure that was followed in its inception (Oliver, 2007, p.1937). The appellant argued that the original stand of the House of Lords to support the 1911 Act could not be used to justify the fact that the House of Commons justified the 1946 Act. Due to the presence of a clear procedure and that the procedure and assumption of the willingness of the House of Commons to Assent the 1946 Bill the appellant argued that the 1946 Act failed to make key changes on the 1911 Act that would increase the chances of its acceptability by the House of Lords.
IV. The Decision
The House of Lords held to the fact that the Hunting Act was legitimate and the same procedure that was used during the creation of the 1911 Act was the same Act used in the creation of the 1946 Act. Therefore, the Hunting Act of 2004 was a legitimate statutory provision that needed to be upheld.
V. Statutory Interpretation & Political Theory & Practice
It is clear from the arguments presented by both the appellant and the apple that the background of the enactment process of the 1911 parliamentary Act was the major cause of split between the House of Lords. The verdict of this case was based on the fact that it was apparent that the House of Commons wanted to reduce the powers of the House of Lords so that it was easier to pass bills (Mclean, 2010, p.120). However, the functioning of house of Commons without close monitoring by the house of lords would be disastrous in that statutes that would not be worthwhile would be passed into law to serve the interests of a few. Therefore the decision with Jackson v. Attorney General (2005) was meant to make sure that parliamentary sovereignty was granted but in a form that embraced checks and balances.
Rule of law versus Jackson v. Attorney General (2005)
Though the British constitution proves for an independence of the Judiciary, the British Rule of Law provides also sets the same standard for other arms of government. Therefore, the legislature is also supposed to be allowed to work freely. This poses the question of whether the material bases of the courts claiming jurisdiction over Jackson v. Attorney General was justified. First of all, it is important to note that the decision of the court regarding Jackson v. Attorney General (2005) was based on the manner and the protocol employed in passing the 1911 parliamentary act. This brings in the question of whether the judiciary has the power to dictate to the legislature on the manner in which laws are passed. Based on the Diceyan understanding of the British Rule of Law, courts are not allowed to handle cases in which they do not have jurisdiction. The ability to determine the justifiability of parliamentary acts should be left in the hands of the legislature and not the judiciary.
Parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy is an idea that arises from the original Diceyan code of the British rule of law. However, Jackson v. Attorney General Case seeks to dissolve this notion. For instance, most of the members of the House of Lords that were opposed to the 1911 Act use other Acts to try to prove that the legislature does not have absolute powers to make parliamentary decisions. For example, Lord Hale uses the Community Act of 1972 as a supporting tool indicate that community standards can affect the legislative process. The acceptance of arguments that sought to dissolve the idea of parliamentary supremacy by the jury and judges in Jackson v. Attorney General indicates that the Judiciary directly ignored the Diceyan notion of parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty.
CONCLUSIONS
Jackson v Attorney General is a fundamental case in bringing out the struggle for sovereignty between various arms of government. Though it is clear that for democratic institutions to offer stable democratic processes there must be independence with the various arms of government, checks and balances are important to regulate the sovereignty of these arms.
One thing that is important to remember is that Jackson v. Attorney General attained constitutional significance because the matter of law under controversy was the extent to which the House of Lords would control the House of Commons through the bills that they pass in parliament. The question of parliamentary sovereignty brought about the conflict in the understanding and interpretation of both the 1911 Act and the one passed in 1946addresses the question of Parliament sovereignty based on the ruling of the landmark case of Attorney General v. Jackson (2005). The key constitutional question within this case was whether two statutes within the British Constitution were legitimate. These statutory provisions were the Parliament Act of 1949 and the Hunting Act which was passed in 2004. This discusses and analyses the constitutional questions that emanate behind the decision in Attorney General v. Jackson 2005 with the question of parliamentary sovereignty being the central concern. The subject Matter of Jackson v. Attorney General (2005) has made it a landmark case in Britain’s political topography. Unlike other cases this case hand an embank sitting where nine judges instead of the normal five sat in the hearing of this case. The plaintiff in this case argued that the Hunting Act of 2004 was a legitimate statutory provision that required legislative recognition. The provisions of the Hunting Act of 2004 made it illegal to hunt small wild mammals using dogs. However, this Act was specifically meant to protect the wild fox from dog hunting. In fact, the banning of fox hunting was one of the aims of the then incumbent Labor Party government during it’s the general elections held in the country in 2001(White, 2001, 89). Though the incumbent government saw the hunting Act as a noble idea, the House of Lords were highly opposed to this statute. The House of Lords used the 1911 Act to support their standpoint on the statutory law. On the other hand, the House of Commons justified their position pertaining to the Hunting Act of 2004 based on the 1946 Act which limited the control of the House of Lords on the House of Commons.
References
Beetham, D. (2005). Political power and democratic control in Britain: New
York: Rouledge Publishers.
McLean, I. (2010). What's wrong with the British constitution?
London: Oxford University Press.
Jago, R. (2011). Constitutional & Administrative Law. New York: Routledge
Publishers.
Oliver, D. (2007). The Changing Constitution. London: Oxford University Press.
White, L. (2001). Government in Great Britain, the Empire, and the Commonwealth.
New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
