R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262 (HL)

Facts

• The claimants, including Jackson, challenged the legality of the Hunting Act 2004.
• The Hunting Act 2004 was enacted using procedures outlined in the Parliament Act 1949.
• The Parliament Act 1949 had itself been passed using procedures from the Parliament Act 1911, which permitted the House of Commons to bypass the House of Lords in certain circumstances, thereby reducing the Lords’ delaying powers.
• The claimants argued that the 1911 Act did not authorize changes that further limited the Lords’ powers, rendering the 1949 Act invalid and, consequently, the Hunting Act 2004 invalid as well.

Issues

1. Whether the Parliament Act 1911 permitted the passing of the Parliament Act 1949 using the procedures it set out.
2. Whether the validity of the Parliament Act 1949 and, by extension, the Hunting Act 2004, could be challenged on the grounds that Parliament had unlawfully altered its own legislative process.
3. Whether there exist core constitutional rules or “process and structure” requirements that limit the UK Parliament’s legislative authority.

Decision

• The House of Lords dismissed the claimants’ appeal, confirming the validity of the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004.
• The Lords restated the traditional rule of Parliamentary sovereignty, holding that Acts passed under appropriate statutory procedures are legally valid.
• Some judges raised the possibility of limits on Parliamentary sovereignty, referencing the concept of “constitutional statutes” and the requirement for clarity if key constitutional principles (such as judicial review or fundamental rights) are to be affected.
• The decision suggested that, while Parliament is generally supreme, there may be circumstances where unspoken constitutional rules could restrict its power.

Legal Principles

• Parliamentary sovereignty remains central to the UK constitution, meaning that Parliament can, in general, legislate on any subject.
• The case introduced the notion that Parliamentary sovereignty may not be absolute, and that “process and structure” requirements could limit how Parliament changes its own authority.
• The judgment acknowledged the concept of “constitutional statutes” whose fundamental principles might demand special protection.
• Courts may be required to consider the rule of law and core constitutional values when interpreting or applying legislation that significantly alters constitutional arrangements.

Conclusion

R (Jackson) v Attorney General affirmed the validity of legislation passed under the Parliament Acts and the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, while opening discussion on whether unspoken constitutional limits exist and whether core constitutional rules could constrain Parliament’s legislative authority.