Jackson vs. Attorney General

Case Title and Citation

Jackson and others (Appellants) vs. Her Majesty’s Attorney General (Respondent)
[2005] UKHL 56, October 13, 2005
House of Lords
Lords Bingham, Nicholls, Steyn, Hope, Rodger, Carswell, and Baroness Hale

---

Facts

• The Hunting Act 2004 banned the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, subject to exceptions. It was enacted without the consent of the House of Lords by using the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.
• Appellants, including members of the Countryside Alliance, challenged the Act’s validity. They argued that the 1949 Act, which amended the 1911 Act to reduce the Lords’ delaying power, was invalid because it was itself enacted without Lords’ consent.
• They sought declarations that:
  1. The Parliament Act 1949 was not a valid Act of Parliament.
  2. The Hunting Act 2004 was therefore invalid.
• The Divisional Court and Court of Appeal rejected these claims. The case was appealed to the House of Lords.

---

Issues

1. Is legislation passed under the Parliament Act 1911 delegated legislation rather than primary legislation?
2. Did section 2(1) of the 1911 Act authorize the Commons to amend its conditions through the 1949 Act?
3. Could the 1949 Act validly amend the 1911 Act without the Lords’ consent?
4. Was the Hunting Act 2004 therefore a valid Act of Parliament?

---

Ruling

1. No — Legislation under the 1911 Act is primary, not delegated, legislation.
2. Yes — Section 2(1) authorized amendments, and the 1949 Act complied with its requirements.
3. Yes — The 1949 Act was validly enacted.
4. Yes — The Hunting Act 2004 was a valid Act of Parliament.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• Primary Legislation: The 1911 Act expressly states that legislation enacted under its procedure “shall become an Act of Parliament.” Such legislation is not subordinate but primary.
• Delegation Argument Rejected: The procedure under the 1911 Act was not a delegation of power but a redefinition of Parliament’s lawmaking process.
• Interpretation of Section 2(1): The words “any public bill” are broad, with exceptions only for Money Bills and those extending Parliament’s life beyond five years. Attempts to insert further restrictions were rejected during the passage of the 1911 Act.
• Validity of 1949 Act: Parliament, as redefined by the 1911 Act, could amend its own terms unless expressly prohibited. The 1949 Act’s amendments shortening delays were within its scope.
• Precedent and Political Reality: Subsequent Acts (e.g., War Crimes Act 1991, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000) had been passed under the 1949 Act and treated as valid, reinforcing its authority.
• Rule of Law and Judicial Role: Courts had jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation of statutes, but once properly enacted under the Parliament Acts, such laws must be recognized as valid.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Acts passed under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 are primary legislation.
• The Commons can legislate without the Lords’ consent under the Parliament Acts, except where expressly prohibited.
• Courts may interpret the scope of enabling legislation but cannot invalidate properly enacted statutes.

---

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed.
• The Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 were declared valid Acts of Parliament with full legal effect.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• All Law Lords concurred in dismissing the appeal.
• Some (Lords Steyn and Hope, Baroness Hale) noted broader constitutional implications, suggesting that parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute and may be limited by the rule of law.

---

Significance / Notes

• Affirmed that laws passed under the Parliament Acts procedure are valid primary legislation.
• Reinforced parliamentary sovereignty but acknowledged judicial authority to interpret its scope.
• Recognized that while Parliament is sovereign, constitutional principles such as the rule of law and democratic accountability influence interpretation.
• Raised important debates on whether there are limits to parliamentary sovereignty in extreme cases (e.g., abolishing judicial review or the House of Lords).