This paper will discuss A.V Dicey’s Definition of parliamentary supremacy vis a vis the landmark case of Jackson v. Attorney General with regards to the orbiter of Lord Steyn It will try to compare the Dicey’s traditional definition of parliamentary sovereignty with the contemporary position as it relates to the Jackson’s case.
The issue of parliamentary supremacy can be drawn from two sources Political events of late Seventeen Century and legal theory as enunciated by A.V Dicey .Dicey definition has three areas, he saw parliament as a supreme law-maker, that the legislation is supreme, also that no parliament is superior to the other in terms of successors or predecessors therefore they do not bind each other.
In other words, parliament as supreme law- maker is the only body that can make law for instance the Bill of right of 1689 the monarchy and the judiciary was dependent on the parliament’s supreme law-making . The Bill of Rights 1689 also reduced the power of the monarch and also did insisted that the Courts follow the laws made by parliament. Dicey’s understanding of parliamentary sovereignty is identical to what is called “Right of Recognitions”. He also suggested that in concept, parliamentary sovereignty has two parts, positive and negative limbs. His positive limb is that parliament can make and unmake any law.
The negative limb is that no court can change the legality of Act of parliament. He never approves of democracy the way it is today practiced in the contemporary United Kingdom . In the Dicey model nobody has the right to override or set aside the legislation of parliament. That which has been enacted by parliament has supreme force Alex Caroll has postulated more simplistically that parliamentary supremacy is sovereign in its own time, legislate as it wishes and for any place.
Under Dicey model powers conferred by an enabling Act cannot be enlarged by the body except
