⇒ Lord Phillips: “If parliament did the inconceivable, we [the judges] might do the inconceivable as well”
⇒ Parliament can act in some conceivable and inconceivable ways
⇒ The following notes concern how the courts react to what Parliament throws at them
⇒ Obiter statements may be made by the courts that go against the absolute conception of parliamentary sovereignty
⇒ For example, see R (Jackson) v AG :
⇒ Judicial interpretations of an Act of Parliament may be at odds with the literal meaning of that Act
⇒ In Pepper v Hart  the court held that there are some ruling where parliamentary debates may be referred to by the court in the interpretation of a statute, and not just use the literal meaning of statutes
⇒ However, the court cannot refer to statements made in parliament in the following situations:
⇒ Judges can make statements extrajudicially expressing their disagreement with proposed legislation or other actions of public bodies
⇒ Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body → it is the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the courts
⇒ The court therefore has the power to restrain or remedy excess or abuse of public power
⇒ The court does NOT have the power to consider whether the exercise of public power was right or wrong
⇒ Judicial review can be used in relation to decisions of ministers, local authorities, or other public officers
⇒ Judicial review is important for accountability, the separation of powers, and protection of individual rights
⇒ This established the Asylum and immigration Tribunal (AIT)
⇒ The AIT was an “independent judicial body” composed of immigration judges and non-legal members
⇒ The AIT was responsible for hearing appeals against government decisions on asylum and immigration matters
⇒ Decisions of the AIT were, according to s.11 of the Bill (the ‘ouster clause’), to be outside the scope of judicial review
⇒ As a result the Government withdrew the ouster clause from the Bill
FOOL-PROOF methods of obtaining top grades
SECRETS your professors won't tell you and your peers don't know
INSIDER TIPS and tricks so you can spend less time studying and land the perfect job
We work really hard to provide you with incredible law notes for free...
The proceeds of this eBook helps us to run the site and keep the service FREE!
⇒ A declaration of incompatibility is a declaration issued by judges in the United Kingdom that they consider that the terms of a statute, or acts of public authorities, are incompatible with the UK's obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into the UK domestic law.
⇒ Following 9/11 the British government issued a derogation (i.e. a derogation allows a State to derogate from certain rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights) which gave the Government extended power to detain foreign nationals on terrorism charges without trial (so Britain was derogating from the ECHR Article 5 ‘Right to Liberty’)
⇒ There were two questions:
⇒ Baroness Hale said: “[T]here is absolutely no reason to think that the problem applies only to foreigners. Quite the reverse. There is every reason to think that there are British nationals living here who are international terrorists … Yet the Government does not think that it is necessary to lock them up”
⇒ Thus, the appellants won the case and the House of Lords issued a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ stating that the British government had legislated and acted contrary to Article 5 of the ECHR
⇒ Could the judiciary potentially refuse to apply parliamentary legislation and/or rule on its invalidity?
⇒ The judiciary came very close to invalidating an Act of Parliament in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission 
⇒ The Foreign Compensation Act 1950 established the Foreign Compensation Commission (a public body). The Commission decided that the claimant (a company) had failed to establish a claim for compensation for the loss of its Egyptian assets following the Suez crisis of 1956. The Act said that any "determination" of the Commission should "not be called in question in any court"
⇒ It was held that the wording of the legislation does not preclude the court from determining whether or not the determination in question was lawful; in other words, despite the seemingly clear meaning of the statute, it was interpreted flexibly such that the judiciary could “carry out the intention of the legislature” (Lord Wilberforce)
⇒ Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission  is the closest the English courts have gone to actually refusing the application of a statutory provision, but why haven’t they gone further?
⇒ Possible reasons:
Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers.
✅ 60+ page eBook
✅ Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more!
✅ Help keep Digestible Notes FREE