R (Jackson) v Attorney General

E79901

R (Jackson) v Attorney General is a landmark 2005 House of Lords case that examined the constitutional validity of legislation enacted under the Parliament Acts and explored fundamental principles about the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.

Observed surface forms (1)


Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf House of Lords case
United Kingdom constitutional law case
judicial review case
aroseFrom challenge to the Hunting Act 2004
concerns constitutional limits of parliamentary sovereignty
interpretation of the Parliament Act 1911
legislative procedure under the Parliament Acts
rule of law in the United Kingdom
validity of the Hunting Act 2004
validity of the Parliament Act 1949
hasCitation [2005] 3 WLR 733
[2005] 4 All ER 1253
[2006] 1 AC 262
hasClaimant Countryside Alliance supporters
pro-hunting campaigners
hasCountry England and Wales
hasCourt Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
surface form: Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
hasDecisionDate 13 October 2005
hasDefendant Attorney General for England and Wales
surface form: Attorney General of the United Kingdom
hasFullName R (Jackson) v Attorney General self-linksurface differs
surface form: Regina (Jackson and others) v Attorney General
hasJudge Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Carswell
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Steyn
hasJurisdiction United Kingdom
hasKeyIssue whether the 1911 Act permitted its own amendment without the consent of the House of Lords
whether there are implied limits on the use of the Parliament Acts procedure
hasNeutralCitation [2005] UKHL 56
hasProceduralHistory appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales
hasYear 2005
held legislation made under the Parliament Acts is primary legislation
the 1911 Act created a new way of enacting primary legislation without the Lords
the Hunting Act 2004 was valid primary legislation
the Parliament Act 1949 was validly enacted
includesDictum suggestion that courts might in extreme circumstances refuse to recognise certain legislation
suggestion that parliamentary sovereignty is a construct of the common law
includesDictumBy Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Steyn
isLandmarkFor doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty
principle of the rule of law
relationship between Parliament and the courts
scope of judicial review of constitutional legislation
legalArea constitutional law
legislative process
public law

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

R (Jackson) v Attorney General hasFullName R (Jackson) v Attorney General self-linksurface differs
this entity surface form: Regina (Jackson and others) v Attorney General
Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 interpretedInCase R (Jackson) v Attorney General