Search results
R (EVANS) V ATTORNEY GENERAL [2015] AC 1787. Summary. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 s did not entitle an accountable person to issue a certificate to override a court's decision that information should be disclosed simply because he disagreed with its conclusion.
Cambridge Law Journal, 65(1), March 2006, pp. 1-51 Printed in Great Britain THE CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL Volume 65, Part 1 March 2006 CASE AND COMMENT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT, THE HUNTING BAN, AND THE PARLIAMENT ACTS The most immediate significance of R. (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2005] 3 W.L.R. 733 is the nine-member
“An Act to make provision with respect to the powers of the House of Lords in relation to those of the House of Commons, and to limit the duration of Parliamen t.”
- 199KB
- 82
Oct 24, 2006 · This paper, which is based on a paper given at a seminar held at the University of Glasgow in November 2005, discusses the sovereignty of Parliament in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v Jackson, which considered the question of whether the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 were valid Acts of ...
- Tom Mullen
- 2007
The High Court rejected Mr Evans’ application in the first instance, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, quashing the Attorney General’s certificate whilst ruling that the Attorney General did not have “reasonable grounds” to reach the decision he had.
Oct 25, 2001 · ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE NUMBER 3 OF 2000. ON 25 OCTOBER 2001 [2001] UKHL 53. LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD. My Lords, 1. Every court has an inherent power and duty to prevent abuse of its process. This is a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
People also ask
Why is Jackson v Attorney General important?
Did the Attorney General have the power to issue a certificate?
How has common law evolved since Sang v Horseferry Road?
Would the Attorney General have issued a certificate for non-environmental information?
Aug 6, 2019 · Jackson v Attorney General is a case of major constitutional significance. House of Lords judges were assigned the task of deliberating whether the Hunting Act 2004 was a lawful Act of Parliament. It had been made an offence under the Act to hunt wild mammals with dogs except within limited conditions.
