My Ssec Capstone Project expressly provided to do so

expressly provided to do so

expressly provided to do so . In the light of the controversial Hunting Act 2004, Jackson and two other members of the Countryside Alliance approached the court in the popular case of Jackson V. Attorney General praying the Court to resolved whether the parliament has the ability to use the parliament Act of 1911 to amend that of 1949.Whether the House of common by utilizing the procedure section 2 of the parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 can on its own extend the life of parliament beyond five years. In this case the A.V Dicey definition of Parliamentary sovereignty came to question.
The case raised the issue of parliamentary sovereignty which is predominant in United Kingdom Constitution, which does not provide any room for Judicial Review of Acts of Parliament and the 1998 Human Rights Acts, precludes the Court from Legislative matters. The appellants in this case wanted from the judges that the Human Act was not a valid Act of parliament which the House of Lord declined to uphold and held that the Hunting Act was a valid Act of parliament. This was the Ratio of the decision but justices like Lord Steyn, Lord Hope and Lord Hale in their Obiter addressed the issue of parliamentary power vis a vis rule of law and Human Rights.
Lord Hope ruled that our contribution is controlled by rule of law enforced by the Courts and this according to him “is responsible for the respective power of parliament and the Courts and not parliamentary supremacy. Lord Baronese Hale adopted his argument.
Lord Steyn was of the view that “Supremacy of the parliament is still the general position of our constitution……that the principal of legality limits the power of parliament, then the concept of
parliamentary sovereignty is entirely redundant”. The three Justices mentioned above agreed that sovereignty of parliament rest with the Court and it has developed over the years that Diceyan notion is no longer the position in our constitution. Lord Steyn in concert with Hope did not agree on the unlimited parliamentary supremacy with regards to the modern constitutional development, he went further to state that Dicey’s view on parliamentary sovereignty is no longer valid in modern constitution. Steyn and Hope