Term
| Who is the most influential Parliamentary Sovereignty theorist? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| According to Dicey, what are the three basic rules of PS? |
|
Definition
i) Parliament are the supreme law-making body
ii) No Parliament may be bound by a predecessor or may bind a successor
iii) No person or body may question the validity of an enactment of Parliament |
|
|
Term
| According to Dicey, what kind of limitations (if any) are there on Parliament's law-making ability? |
|
Definition
| No legal limitations, but there are political limitations |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Lord Hoffman (Obiter) - 'Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights'
NOTE HOWEVER - (as discussed in RoL) courts will presume against infringement of human rights, unless legislation explicitly states that it is. |
|
|
Term
| Sir Leslie Stephens [1882] - quote |
|
Definition
| 'Parliament could pass a law ordering the death of all blue-eyed babies' |
|
|
Term
| Can Parliament pass laws which alter its terms in office? |
|
Definition
| YES - Septennial Act 1715 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| PARLIAMENT CAN PASS LAWS WHICH ALTER ITS TERM IN OFFICE |
|
|
Term
| In a discussion of Parliament's supreme power for lawmaking, what are three useful categories you can consider? |
|
Definition
i) No geographical limitations
ii) No limitations on subject-matter
iii) No temporal limitations |
|
|
Term
Which case can be used as an example of:
a) No geographical limitations on parliament's law-making ability
b) Courts holding parliamentary law supreme over international law |
|
Definition
| Mortensen v Peters [1906] |
|
|
Term
| Mortensen v Peters [1906] |
|
Definition
PARLIAMENT IS SUPREME OVER INTERNATIONAL LAW
PARLIAMENTS LAW-MAKING HAS NO GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITATIONS
UK Act restricted fishing within 5 miles
International law = can only restrict within 3 miles
UK courts felt bound to apply the UK Act, even though it was in contravention of the international law. |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to illustrate that Parliamentary law-making has no temporal limitations? |
|
Definition
| Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate [1965] |
|
|
Term
| Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate [1965] - on temporal limitations |
|
Definition
| PARLIAMENT PASSED A RETROSPECTIVE ACT |
|
|
Term
| Up to what point do statutes remain valid? |
|
Definition
| Up to the point at which they are repealed (if ever) |
|
|
Term
| Why must it be possible to repeal legislation? |
|
Definition
| As no Parliament can be bound by its predecessors, nor can it bind its successors |
|
|
Term
| What are the two forms of repeal? |
|
Definition
Express repeal
Implied repeal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Where legislation is passed which expressly states the intention that an earlier Act should be repealed |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If an Act is partially or wholly inconsistent with a previous Act, the previous Act is repealed to the extent of the inconsistency |
|
|
Term
| Which case can be used to show that you cannot impliedly repeal a statute which is believed to be a constitutional statute? |
|
Definition
| Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2003] |
|
|
Term
| Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation [1932] & Ellen St Estates v Minister of Health [1934] |
|
Definition
NO PARLIAMENT MAY BE BOUND BY A PREDECESSOR OR BIND A SUCCESSOR - WHERE AN ACT IS INCONSISTENT WITH AN EARLIER ACT, THE EARLIER ACT IS IMPLIEDLY REPEALED TO THE EXTENT OF THE INCONSISTENCY
Cs owned properties which were compulsarily purchased from them
Cs held that they should be compensated according to a 1919 Act
However, Ds held that the Cs should be compensated according to a 1925 Act
The 1925 and 1919 acts conflicted with each other
HELD - the court felt bound to apply the terms of the 1925 Act, as otherwise, the 1919 Act would have become entrenched & the legislature would be bound |
|
|
Term
| Which cases can be used to show that where an Act is inconsistent with an earlier act, the earlier act will be impliedly repealed to the extent of the inconsistency? |
|
Definition
| Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation [1932] & Ellen St Estates v Minister of Health [1934] |
|
|
Term
| Whilst implied repeal operates in relation to most statutes, there is the growing view that it may not be applicable to certain statutes - what are these statutes, and what case can be used to show this? |
|
Definition
a) Constitutional statutes - e.g. HRA & European Communitiesd Act
b) Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2003] |
|
|
