Parliamentary veto a court ruling underneath s.53 (2) of

sovereignty is a very important concept in United Kingdom constitution. It came
about at the time of William III and Mary II who came to a position of royalty
through sacrificing their own power and giving it to parliament, as a result,
the monarch’s power of royal prerogative is underneath parliament within the
late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. This condition may be found
within the Bill of Rights 1688, that expressed laws should be created or
revoked by Parliament and not by the Monarch alone.

Custom views of parliamentary sovereignty derive from
Dicey’s, his views of parliament are the following; the primary being that
parliament is that the final law-making establishment and can sanction any law,
the second being is that no parliament is to be bound by a forerunner nor bind
a future successor and, the remainder of Dicey’s principles is that no
individual or body might inquire or question the validity and legitimacy of law.
This essay can discuss if these views stay correct.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In the R (on the appliance of Evans) v professional General
2015 UKSC 21, the Attorney General, who is a minister, exercised his power to
veto a court ruling underneath s.53 (2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Judicial review occurred and it upheld the veto, then the problem proceeded to
the Supreme Court (SP) that overrode the review. It was expressed there were no
grounds for the veto and that Section 53(2) was contrary to EU law.

The significance of the R v Attorney General is that this
judgment provides is a concept to the degree to that it’s lawful for a court
active forces of judicial review to strike down a Government Minister’s
decision created underneath the powers allowed by Parliament to overturn a
tribunal’s judgment. Since the SP overrode the Judicial review and set that the
Minister had no ground to exercise his power of veto, it implies that it is
legitimate for a court to deny Parliaments will, this will be Parliament
permitting the use of the veto. It may be argued that the Diceyan Doctrine
isn’t correct because the courts used their power to deny a Minister his power
that was expressly given by an act of parliament, and so the courts questioned
the validity of an act of parliament.

Furthermore, Jackson v Attorney General contained thought
from judges acting in their official boundary, that courts might have the
ability to strike down an Act of Parliament in the event of a violation of
constitutional principles. thus, a body like a court will question the
legitimacy of laws brought by Parliament. In this case, 3 law lords urged that
that courts had the ability to strike down legislation. One example is Lord
Steyn aforementioned “It (parliamentary supremacy) is a construct of the common
law. The judges created this principle. If that is so, it is not unthinkable
that circumstances could arise where the courts may have to qualify a principle
established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism. In exceptional
circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary
role of the courts”. this means that the courts do have the flexibility to
question parliament and the laws it makes revolving Judiciary as Lord Steyn
discussed how if Parliament was to remove certain court powers such as Judicial
review through law, the courts have strike down that law. Therefore, in theory,
the Diceyan Doctrine that nobody or institution may question parliament
legislative agenda is inaccurate.

And so, each case referenced above resulted in challenges to
the customer perspective of parliamentary sovereignty, this being that no
individual or body like a court might question the validity of the law.

However, though it’s going to appear as if the court
decisions are going against sovereignty and the Diceyan doctrine of thought,
the case R (On the appliance of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union 2017 UKSC 5 shows that the court’s call upheld the Diceyan
school of thought.

In the R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union, there was a problem that the government utilising exclusive powers known
as Prerogative powers to trigger article 50. The question here was if these
powers could be used to trigger article 50. The Supreme Court recognised that
there was an important guideline of the UK’s constitution, this being that
Parliament is sovereign and might create an undo laws. The European Communities
Act 1972 which brought the UK into the EU was introduced through an Act of
Parliament and so the government cannot supersede this using exclusive right
powers given by the monarch. It was said that Parliament should only Trigger
article 50 because the ECA 1972 is an independent source of law, then
parliament might solely select once to reject this source. Additionally, the EU
provided citizens with rights, and so solely Parliament is authorised to revoke
this. The may be a crucial case as this case is new, the Supreme Court creating
a choice in 2017 that upheld the Diceyan Doctrine, is that Parliament is
supreme law creating body and solely it will create and undo laws as only it
could repeal the ECA 1972 and trigger article 50.

However, we should contemplate the position of parliament
before the EU referendum and R v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
throughout this situation, the Diceyan Doctrine remained inaccurate through the
European Communities Act 1972 (ECA). The ECA allowed the U.K to become a member
of the European Union. It additionally gave way EU law superseding United Kingdom’s
law brought by Parliament and so, takes precedence over national law. This
implies that parliament is not any longer, the supreme law-making body because
the EU currently makes the law that Parliament cannot supervene upon. This is
an example that shows Diceyan Doctrine of thought being inaccurate, this
account being that parliament is the supreme law-making body which nobody or
body like a court will question the validity of the law is that the issue tame

In R (Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport,
the European Court of Justice (ECJ) addressed the legitimacy of the Merchant
Shipping Act (MSA) 1988, that was declared to prevent Spanish fishing owners
from selling fish caught in the UK in Spain. This issue was later in the ECJ,
that MSA dishonoured the Treaty of Rome 1957 that created the European Economic
Community. Here is a case of prevention of parliamentary act from having an
effect, which demonstrates that parliament isn’t the preeminent t law creating
body because the MSA was declared incompatible with EU law, so the MSA ought to
be negated. It indicates how a court, will question the validity of an act
introduced by Parliament. Therefore, this Dicey account of parliamentary
sovereignty being inaccurate.

However, one might argue that Parliament consented to the
present dominion and can simply repeal the ECA 1972. This would mean that
Parliament’s sovereignty isn’t lost and Dicey’s account would subsequently be
correct. This is currently happening, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will
negate ECA and lead to the countries exit from the EU. Once this Bill receives
royal assent, the U.K will no longer be subjugated to EU law and the European
court of justice. Parliament will once more be the supreme law creating body
and no establishment will question the validity its laws. Therefore, Diceyan
doctrine remains correct.

The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1988 doesn’t have an entrenched
standing and, maybe amend or repealed supported a parliamentary majority, so it
may be thought of to not be destructive to Parliamentary sovereignty. We must
also consider that if Parliament was to repeal the HRA as it wanted to in 2010
with the Bill of Right, it would have to replace it with rights that conform to
the European Convention on Human Rights. So, parliament is essence is limited
and so it is not the supreme law-making body as it must conform to regulation
when passing a bill. This means that Dicyan Doctrine is in inaccurate.

In addition to this Section 4 of the Act, permits the higher
courts to issue of a declaration of incompatibility to act of Parliament in
relevancy to human rights. This enables courts to think about that the terms of
a statute, acts of public authority that Parliament has passed, and choose if
it’s incompatible with the UK’s commitments underneath the Human Rights Act
1998. thus, this means that the Diceyan Doctrine isn’t correct as it goes
against the concept that nobody like a court will question the validity of AN
act Parliament.

However, in terms of the declaration of incompatibility, it
merely demonstrates the act of Parliament is contrary with the European
Convention of Human Rights, it doesn’t negate the statute as Parliament then
chooses to decide if it needs to amend the act. To illustrate this more,
underneath Section 10 of the HRA, a Minister of the Crown might create such
modification to primary legislation that is viewed as vital to withdraw the
incompatibility. thus, it may be argued that the courts cannot strike down an
Act of Parliament as Parliament can repair the problem and so the Diceyan
Doctrine of thought remains correct.

As indicated by the Diceyan Doctrine, Parliament is not
bound by its predecessors or bind its successors. this is often largely shown
through the Doctrine of implicit Repeal. This is when Act of Parliament
conflicts with an earlier act, the later Act takes precedence. Through this, we
can say that no parliament is bound or binding. In Vauxhall homes ltd v port
Corporation, the court command that the Housing Act 1925 impliedly repealed the
Acquisition of land act 1919. This shows the sovereignty of parliament, this
being that no parliament will bind a future parliament. Therefore, the Diceyan
Doctrine remains correct.

In conclusion, the school of thought of Parliamentary
sovereignty seems to own come back full circle since Dicey first defined it.
The Diceyan Doctrine had undergone challenges like the EU. However, there has
additionally been a series of acceptance of the Diceyan Doctrine, like the
Miller case. Yet, to follow the three parts that Diceyan Doctrine has held up.
My final remark is that when the withdrawal bill receives royal assent, Dicey’s
account of Parliamentary will be accurate in theory, but in practice, there
would still be limited such as the Courts. On this note, I say that Parliament
is sovereign and that the U.K adheres to the account of Dicey