R (Jackson) v Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 94 (Admin) |
| Date | 28 January 2005 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT
Before Lord Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Collins
Constitutional law - Act of Parliament - validity - Hunting Act survives challenge to 1949 Act
The Hunting Act 2004 was valid because the Parliament Act 1949 which was used to ensure its passage through Parliament was valid.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court so held in a reserved judgment when dismissing a claim by the claimants, John Bernard Haysom Jackson, Patrick Douglas Martin and Harriet Mair Hughes, for declarations that (i) the Parliament Act 1949 was not a valid Act of Parliament and was consequently of no legal effect and (ii) accordingly, the Hunting Act 2004 was not an Act of Parliament and was of no legal effect.
The Attorney-General defended the claim and the League Against Cruel Sports appeared as an interested party.
Sir Sydney Kentridge, QC, Mr Richard Lissack, QC, Mr Martin Chamberlain and Mr Marcus Haywood for the claimants; Lord Goldsmith, QC, Attorney-General, Mr Philip Sales and Mr Clive Lewis for the Attorney-General; Mr David Pannick, QC and Mr Gordon Nardell for the League against Cruel Sports.
LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY said that on December 3, 2002 the Hunting Bill was laid before the House of Commons. During that session of Parliament it was passed by the Commons but did not find favour in the House of Lords.
A Bill in identical terms was reintroduced in the Commons on September 9, 2004 and was again passed. It received a third reading in the Lords but only in a significantly amended form.
On November 18, 2004, the Commons rejected the proposed amendments and the Speaker issued a certificate pursuant to section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911, as amended by the Parliament Act 1949, whereupon the Bill received Royal Assent the same day.
The Hunting Act 2004 was due to come into force on February 19, 2005.
The sole issue in the case was whether the 2004 Act was lawfully processed by Parliament. The claimants' contention was that it has not been because the procedure which resulted in Royal Assent was that provided for by Parliament Act 1949 and that Act was not validly passed by Parliament.
The Parliament Bill 1947 was introduced on October 31, 1947. It was passed by the Commons but rejected by the Lords in 1947, 1948 and 1949.
On December 16, 1949 it received Royal Assent on the basis that there had been compliance with the provisions of the 1911 Act.
The first three Acts to have received Royal Assent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norris v Government of the United States of America
... ... to in the extradition proceedings before the District Judge by Lucy P McClain, a trial attorney for the Anti Trust Division of the United States Department of Justice ... 10 ... following words of Lord Parker of Waddington, giving the judgment of the Board in Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1913] AC 781 , PC, at 797: ... of such ambiguity to identify the mischief at which the Act was directed; see R (Jackson & Ors) v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262 , per Lord Steyn at paras 97 and 98. If, as is my view, ... ...
-
R (Countryside Alliance and Others) v Attorney-General and Another
...of the right must be in accordance with or prescribed by law, as this undoubtedly is following the decision of this House in R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262; it must pursue one of the legitimate aims listed; and it must be "necessary in a democratic society"......
-
R (Miller and Another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union; Re McCord's application
...Group intervening) [2015] UKSC 16; [2015] 1 WLR 1449; [2015] PTSR 471; [2015] 4 All ER 939, SC(E)R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] EWHC 94 (Admin); The Times, 31 January 2005, DC; [2005] UKHL 56; [2006] 1 AC 262; [2005] 3 WLR 733; [2005] 4 All ER 1253, HL(E)R (Minter) v Chief Constable ......
-
Scott Henley-Smith v Secretary of State for Justice
... ... at [49]); (ii) as an explanation of the executive's motivation ( Toussaint v Attorney-General of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [2007] 1 WLR 2825 PC , per Lord Mance at [23]; and ... 63 In R (Jackson) v Attorney-General [2005] UKHL 56 , [2006] 1 AC 262 , Lord Steyn, obiter , approved of the ... ...