Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R (Jackson) v Attorney General

[2005] UKHL 56

Case summary last updated at 06/02/2020 12:44 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R (Jackson) v Attorney General

Challenge to the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 (ban on fox hunting): The attorney general did not block an attempt by the appellants to show the parliament acts and the hunting act were invalid (this was probably for political reasons so as to get a legal mandate for the act): HL said that clearly, following Pickin v British railways board an act couldn’t be invalidated, though HL was prepared to treat the proceedings as justiciable because, unlike the previous case, this was about whether a law had really been enacted, and not questioning parliamentary procedure (per Lord bingham). Similarly the appellants were questioning the interpretation of a provision of the Parliament Act 1911, which was a proper area for the courts. : The argument ran that the 1911 act delegated legislation to HC + gov, that delegated legislation could not be used to increase the scope of the delegatee’s authority (true- established by convention), that bills passed by only gov + HC was delegated legislation (not proven), and that the 1949 act was broadening the authority of the delegate by further removing the power of the HL to limit them. HL rejected this, partly on the grounds of the long acceptance of the 1949 act. 

R (Jackson) v Attorney General crops up in following areas of law