Jackson v HM Attorney General help! Watch

Rascacielos
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
I'm a first year law student and am trying to do some pre-reading to get a head start. I've come across the case Jackson v HM Attorney General and as my textbook is as clear as mud, I don't understand why it was decided that the 1949 Parliament Act was valid, thus confirming the validity of the Hunting Act 2004.

Could someone explain to me, very simply, what happened?

Thanks
0
reply
Rascacielos
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#2
Bump!
0
reply
Maicccccmannnn
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by Rascacielos)
I'm a first year law student and am trying to do some pre-reading to get a head start. I've come across the case Jackson v HM Attorney General and as my textbook is as clear as mud, I don't understand why it was decided that the 1949 Parliament Act was valid, thus confirming the validity of the Hunting Act 2004.

Could someone explain to me, very simply, what happened?

Thanks
It was argued that the Hunting Act 2004 was an invalid form of legislation, because the legislation used to pass it through Parliament - the Parliament Act 1949 - was itself invalid.

The 1949 Act was alleged to be invalid because:

-the 1949 Act was not passed through all chambers of Parliament, and therefore it only amounted to 'delegated legislation'. Delegated legislation cannot be used to extend or restrict any other powers. Because the the 1949 Act was used to further a power - that is, to further the power to restrict Hunting in the UK, the power it furthered, and the legislation which furthered it (the Hunting Act), was invalid.

-the 1949 Act was enacted using the 1911 Act, and the 1949 Act furthered the power contained within the 1911 Act. It was argued that the 1911 Act never conferred upon Parliament the power to enact legislation which would further its powers in the 1911 Act. Therefore because the 1911 Act was used to further the powers contained within the 1911 Act, the Act which did further those powers was invalid.

The House of Lords rejected both of these arguments:

a) the 1949 Act was not delegated legislation

b) the 1911 Act did not restrict Parliaments power to further the powers contained within the 1911 Act

Therefore the 1949 Act was valid and the legislation which resulted from it - the Hunting Act - was also valid.

Sorry if all this is a megga head ****, I hope this helps.
0
reply
Howbeit
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
" It was argued that the 1911 Act never conferred upon Parliament the power to enact legislation" What does this exactly mean? 'conferred upon parliament'?
0
reply
yipi135
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
YOU, MAN, ARE A HERO. Thanks so much.
0
reply
LR19student
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Life saver
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Roehampton
    Department of Media, Culture and Language; School of Education; Business School Undergraduate
    Tue, 19 Feb '19
  • Edge Hill University
    Undergraduate and Postgraduate - Campus Tour Undergraduate
    Tue, 19 Feb '19
  • University of Kent
    Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities Further education
    Tue, 19 Feb '19

Do you give blood?

Yes (68)
8.03%
I used to but I don't now (23)
2.72%
No, but I want to start (313)
36.95%
No, I am unable to (212)
25.03%
No, I chose not to (231)
27.27%

Watched Threads

View All