Jackson and others v Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262

Case analysis

[@PorchElla]

I am currently reading this long case for public law. Thanks for providing an analysis on it before I dive into the 82 page case.

[@bsoh2071]

Thanks for posting these videos, they are very helpful! Currently a first year law student.

[@caselawexplained7319]

Hi B Soh. I am glad that you are finding them helpful - good luck with your First Year!

[@chloehall2839]

This was so helpful and the issues were conveyed so well, thank you!

[@caselawexplained7319]

Thanks Chloe. Good luck!

[@133RAst]

Incredibly helpful! Happy to have found your channel. Thank you for sharing. Subscribed.

[@caselawexplained7319]

Thanks Reiss

[@joshpike1431]

Really happy to have found this - thanks for uploading!

[@caselawexplained7319]

Cheers Josh

[@user-zu4oc6sl1p]

It was very instructive

[@caselawexplained7319]

Thanks Sarah

[@willtaylor7759]

This is a very helpful encapsulation of Jackson. Please would you give a list of those cases in which Lord Steyn's dictum (paragraph [102]) and Lord Hope's dictum (paragraphs [104] - [107]) have been latterly considered by the English Courts?

[@caselawexplained7319]

Thanks Will but I am just too busy to do that research but you could start here swarb.co.uk/jackson-and-others-v-attorney-general-hl-13-oct-2005/

[@ASKLLB-l9o]

So the concern expressed in the decision, obiter, is that Parliament can side-step important constitutional rights of Judicial Review by simply legislating their way out of it. It seems the court in Jackson are saying that the common law/rule of law is and/or ought to be the check/balance of Parliament trying (purposely or not) to abolish rights such as as Judicial Reviews.

[@caselawexplained7319]

Yes that is the obiter concern

[@ProDemocracy01]

Thank you

[@caselawexplained7319]

You're welcome.

[@ulfatak]

I wish I’d studied Law instead of Biochemistry.

[@esu4124]

who is the unelected chamber?