Blackburn v The Attorney General

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant has brought two actions against the Attorney-General seeking declarations that by signing the Treaty of Rome, Her Majesty's Government would surrender part of the sovereignty of The Crown in Parliament permanently, thereby acting unlawfully. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the Statements of Claim on the basis that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Both the Master and the Judge granted the strike-out. With the Court's leave, the Appellant appealed the decision, aiming to clarify the legal position regarding the proposed treaty and its implications on sovereignty.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Her Majesty's Government, by signing the Treaty of Rome, would unlawfully surrender or limit the sovereignty of The Crown in Parliament permanently.
2. Whether the Courts have jurisdiction to entertain actions challenging the treaty-making power of the Crown before any treaty is signed or legislation enacted.
3. Whether Parliament can enact legislation implementing the treaty that would bind its successors irrevocably, contrary to the principle that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament.
4. Whether the Appellant has standing to bring these actions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The signing of the Treaty of Rome would result in an irreversible surrender of sovereignty by The Crown in Parliament to the Common Market.
• The European Economic Community's regulations would automatically bind the people of the country, and national courts would have to follow decisions of the European Court in certain respects.
• The treaty would limit Parliament's sovereignty by binding future Parliaments irrevocably, contrary to the constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successors.
• The Appellant contends that this treaty is exceptional and justifies judicial intervention because of its unique impact on sovereignty.

Respondent's Arguments (Attorney-General)

• The Courts have no jurisdiction to question or interfere with the treaty-making power of The Crown, which is exercised by the Crown on the advice of Ministers.
• No treaty has been signed yet, and the Courts do not recognize treaties until they are implemented in legislation enacted by Parliament.
• The principle that no Parliament can bind its successors remains valid; any issues about binding future Parliaments would be addressed if and when Parliament enacts legislation and attempts to bind successors.
• The Appellant's concerns are premature and hypothetical, and the courts should not make declarations on political or constitutional matters before they arise in concrete legislative form.
• Standing of the Appellant was not ruled upon but was not a barrier to dismissal of the claims on substantive grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized the Appellant's concerns about sovereignty and the irreversible nature of joining the Common Market. However, it emphasized the fundamental constitutional principle that the treaty-making power rests with the Crown, exercised by Ministers, and is not subject to judicial review before legislation is enacted. The Court noted that no treaty had yet been signed, and even if it were, treaties have no effect in domestic law until incorporated by Parliament. The Court also addressed the principle that no Parliament can bind its successors, acknowledging political realities that may limit this principle in practice but emphasizing that these matters are not ripe for judicial determination at this stage. The Court declined to rule on the Appellant's standing, finding it unnecessary given the substantive grounds for dismissal. The Court concluded that the Statements of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and dismissed the appeals.

Holding and Implications

The appeals are dismissed with costs.

The Court's decision confirms that it will not entertain challenges to the treaty-making power of the Crown or hypothetical constitutional questions concerning sovereignty before any treaty is signed or legislation enacted. The ruling affirms the separation of powers between the Crown's prerogative, Parliament's legislative authority, and the Courts' interpretative role. The decision has no broader precedential effect beyond the direct dismissal of the Appellant's claims at this preliminary stage.