- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty's Attorney General
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellants, all of whom participate in or support fox-hunting, sought a declaration that the Hunting Act 2004 is invalid. Their challenge did not concern the substance of that Act but the legislative route by which it was enacted. The Hunting Act was passed without the consent of the House of Lords, using the expedited procedure contained in the Parliament Act 1911 as amended by the Parliament Act 1949. The Appellants argued that the 1949 Act itself was unlawfully enacted and therefore could not be relied upon to validate the 2004 Act.
They failed in the Divisional Court and again in the Court of Appeal. They then appealed to the House of Lords (sitting judicially). The Attorney General appeared as Respondent and “The League Against Cruel Sports” intervened supporting the Respondent in writing.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Parliament Act 1949 was a valid Act of Parliament, given that it was itself enacted under the procedure laid down in section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911.
- If the 1949 Act was valid, whether the Hunting Act 2004, passed under the Parliament Acts procedure as amended, is likewise valid.
- The ancillary question of whether any implicit limits exist on the kinds of constitutional change that may be enacted using the 1911 Act procedure.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The 1911 Act created a delegated or subordinate law-making power; delegates (the House of Commons and the Monarch) cannot lawfully enlarge that power without the express consent of the delegator (the House of Lords).
- The phrase “any Public Bill” in section 2(1) of the 1911 Act should be read subject to an implied limitation: it cannot be used to amend the very conditions that govern its own use.
- Allowing the 1911 procedure to amend itself would lead to “politically unreasonable” consequences – e.g. abolishing the House of Lords or extending the life of Parliament – which Parliament cannot have intended.
Respondent's (Attorney General’s) Arguments
- Legislation passed in accordance with sections 1 or 2 of the 1911 Act is expressly declared to “become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent,” and therefore has the status of primary, not delegated, legislation.
- The 1911 Act did not delegate power from the Lords to the Commons; it re-defined the legislative process by restricting the Lords’ veto. Nothing in the statute prevents its own amendment under that process.
- The only express exclusions from section 2(1) concern Money Bills, Bills extending the maximum life of Parliament, and Provisional Order Bills. Beyond these, “any Public Bill” means what it says.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765 | Courts cannot look behind the Parliamentary Roll to impeach enacted legislation. | Confirmed that the Speaker’s certificate is conclusive as to procedural compliance but does not bar examination of statutory limits. |
| Stradling v Morgan (1560) 1 Plow 199 | Courts may read down wide words to avoid absurd consequences. | Cited by Appellants; rejected as basis for implying limits absent textual support. |
| R (Edison First Power) v CVO [2003] UKHL 20 | Principles of purposive interpretation. | Part of Appellants’ suite of interpretation authorities; not decisive. |
| R v Secretary of State, ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539 | Parliament is presumed not to legislate contrary to fundamental principles. | Relied on by Appellants; court held no fundamental principle was infringed. |
| R v Secretary of State, ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 | Ambiguous words will not be construed to override fundamental rights. | Same as above. |
| R (Morgan Grenfell) v Special Commissioner [2003] 1 AC 563 | Clear words needed to override privilege. | Cited generally on statutory construction; not determinative. |
| R v Burah (1878) 3 App Cas 889 | Colonial legislatures with plenary power may amend their own constitutions. | Court distinguished colonial context but used dictum that limits arise only from express restrictions. |
| Taylor v A-G of Queensland (1917) 23 CLR 457 | Power of a legislature to abolish an upper house when not expressly forbidden. | Used to show absence of an implied bar on self-amendment. |
| McCawley v The King [1920] AC 691 | Legislative bodies with plenary authority may amend the constituting Act. | Analogous support for Respondent’s position. |
| Minister of the Interior v Harris 1952 (4) SA 769 | Where the founding Act entrenches procedure, it must be followed. | Cited by Appellants to argue for implied entrenchment; court held 1911 Act did not entrench itself. |
| Clayton v Heffron (1960) 105 CLR 214 | Further Australian authority on constitutional self-amendment. | Supported Respondent’s construction approach. |
| Bribery Commissioner v Ranasinghe [1965] AC 172 | Legislation enacted contrary to entrenched procedure is invalid. | Distinguished: 1911 Act contains no entrenched prohibition relevant here. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
All members of the Appellate Committee agreed that section 2(1) of the 1911 Act intentionally authorises the enactment of any public Bill—save for the three express exclusions—without the Lords’ consent once the statutory time-lapse and rejection requirements are satisfied.
- Primary, not delegated, legislation: Sections 1(1) and 2(1) declare that a Bill enacted under their terms “shall become an Act of Parliament.” The phrase was held to denote primary legislation. Hence the House of Commons was not exercising a delegated power but participating in an alternative, statutorily authorised, legislative process.
- No implied limitation on self-amendment: The historical record showed repeated attempts (all defeated) to insert additional exceptions into the 1911 Bill. Parliament therefore knew how to entrench provisions but chose not to do so. The court refused to read in an unstated prohibition on amending the 1911 Act.
- Expressio unius principle: Because section 2(1) expressly excludes only Money Bills, life-extending Bills, and Provisional Order Bills, it implies that all other Public Bills are within scope.
- Constitutional context: The 1911 Act was itself the product of a political decision to restrict the Lords’ veto. Its purpose was to secure Commons primacy; allowing amendment by the same procedure is consistent with that aim.
- Precedent and practice: Since 1949, Governments of different political persuasions have passed four Acts under the amended Parliament Acts procedure, each later treated as valid in further legislation. This long-standing recognition reinforced the court’s interpretation.
- Possible outer limits reserved: A majority observed that an attempt to use the 1911 procedure to prolong the life of Parliament beyond five years, or perhaps to abolish the Lords altogether, might raise distinct questions. Those issues were left open.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The Parliament Act 1949 is a valid Act of Parliament enacted in accordance with the Parliament Act 1911, and the Hunting Act 2004, enacted under the 1949 procedure, is likewise valid.
Implications: The decision confirms that, save for the specific statutory exceptions, the Parliament Acts procedure may lawfully be used both to amend its own conditions and to enact ordinary public legislation without the House of Lords’ consent. No new constitutional limitation was recognised, although the House signalled that extreme uses of the procedure (for example, to extend the maximum life of Parliament) might still be open to judicial scrutiny in a future case.
Alert