Search results
The most immediate significance of R. (Jackson) v. Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2005] 3 W.L.R. 733 is the nine-member Appellate Committee's unanimous conclusion that the Hunting Act 2004, which, with some exceptions, makes it an offence to hunt a wild mammal with a dog, is a valid Act of Parliament. However,
The effect of section 1 of the 1911 Act is to restrict the power of the Lords to amend or reject money bills. The effect of section 2(1) is, despite the different conditions, the same, and is aptly summarised in the sidenote: “Restriction of the powers of the House of Lords as to Bills other than Money Bills”.
- 199KB
- 82
Legal Case Summary. Jackson v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262. Upholds the legality of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, limiting the House of Lords’ legislative powers.
101. The potential consequences of a decision in favour of the Attorney General are far-reaching. The Attorney General said at the hearing that the government might wish to use the 1949 Act to bring about constitutional changes such as altering the composition of the House of Lords.
- Headnote
- Appellate History
- Topics
- See
This case was seen by the House of Lords. It concerned the correct interpretation of the Parliament Act 1911, and the validity of the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004. I. Facts of the Case Before the passage of the Parliament Act 1911, any new Parliament Act required the consent of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. As th...
The House of Lords [2005] –Decision ApprovedCourt of Appeal [2005] –Decision ApprovedDivisional Court [2005] –Decision ApprovedParliamentary SovereigntyRule of LawUK Legislation: 1. Bill of Rights 1689 2. Acts of Union of 1707 3. Septennial Act 1715 4. Great Reform Act 5. Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 6. South Africa Act 7. Finance (1909-10) Act 1910 8. Parliament Act 1911 9. Government of Ireland Act 1914 10. Welsh Church Act 1914 11. Abdication Act 1936 12. Parliament Act 1949 13. European Communities Ac...
Jan 2, 2018 · 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 ...
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.
