Reflective Writing on Legal Research and Judicial Review Case Analysis
Question 1: Reflective Writing
Efficacious problem-solving skills are significant in legal studies and practice, and an important cornerstone is research (Tsaoussi, 2020). Based on what I have learned in the W211 module, I have gained a lot of understanding of the various ways of conducting independent research. and have enhanced my skills in sourcing information and appraising the materials found.
Identifying and Locating Relevant Sources:
As for the weak points, at the start of the given module, I faced challenges in identifying the most relevant and effective legal resources. To this end, by using the W211 Research handbook I could improve my knowledge on how to use databases and how to refine the searches and in the library tutors I could learn more on how to use specific databases. This one helped me to search statutes, case laws, and academic articles and works concerning even more efficiently. Out of all the activities in Units 8-12, these were perhaps the most useful in that they gave me structured activities that forced me to practice how to search for and utilize different legal databases.
Evaluating the Quality of Sources:
First of all, it was really hard to sort out primary and secondary sources and to differentiate between a trustworthy source and a deceptive one. I also understood from PROMPT criteria and the activities within the module how to evaluate the sources credibility and relevance. I gained experience in how to select the proper literature, which authorities were available and up to date.
Improvements and Further Development:
By the time I had written this piece and had its draft reviewed for readability and coherence, these skills had been enhanced. We have now been taught how to search for pertinent sources and how to assess the availability of resources efficiently. However, my agenda is to improve the efficiency of recognising the most contextual materials among multiple search results.
Application in EmTMA:
In response to the second question, I have also employed the enhanced Journalists skills by identifying five vastly different yet credible sources on the chosen judicial review case. In response to Question 3, I used the PROMPT tool to analyse one of the main articles, which proved the feasibility of the method, thus showing my aptitude for evaluating the source. These skills allowed me to develop a logical and strong argument on how the case affected the incorporated Constitution of the United Kingdom.
Question 2: Judicial Review Case
Introduction
This essay examines the judicial review case of R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 and its impact on two key aspects of the UK Constitution. The key principles are the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the Rule of Law (Pech, 2022). Thus, this essay seeks to establish that in light of the consequences of the case, Jackson constituted a shift from the conventional common law notion of parliamentary sovereignty but supported radicalisation in guaranteeing the rule of law. By using and comparing primary and secondary sources in combination with analysis the author of the essay will show how this case shaped and amended the underlying constitutional rules in the United Kingdom and acted as a starting point for the delivery of numerous legal precedents.
Background of the Case
The R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 case revolved around the constitutional issue of the Hunting Act 2004 made under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 (Monaghan, 2021). The claimants said that since the 1949 Act was in itself unlawful as it seeked to amended the 1911 Act which accorded the House of Lords a power to stall legislation, the Hunting Act was also unlawful. Issues of whether the procedure followed by the House of Lords was legal and whether the Parliament Acts could be utilised to pass the Hunting Act were matters of concern drawn to the House of Lords.
The judicial ruling endorsed the constitutional recognition of the Parliament Acts in both 1949 and 2004, apparently stating that the use of the Parliament Acts procedure to bypass the House of Lords is constitutional. The Lords argued that the 1911 Act was an authority approved by Parliament to be changed by referring to rules made under it and thus the 1949 Act as well as the Hunting Act were lawful.
Analysis of Constitutional impact
Aspect 1: Parliamentary sovereignity
The essence of parliamentary sovereignty refers to the legislative supremacy of the Parliament in a given state, in which Parliament cannot be bound by any of its previous decisions, except by itself (Greene, 2020).
Parliamentary sovereignty occupies a central place in the assumed or implied constitution of the United Kingdom where it means that Parliament is solely the ultimate and supreme lawmaking body capable of creating as well as abolishing any laws. This article on the implementation of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty will be developed based on the analysis of the following legal case: R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56.
In this study, historical context and legal background are discussed under two subheadings, namely Legal Bases for the Cause of Action and Prevalence of Shariah Law in the Context of the Current Study (Siems, 2022).
The idea of parliamentary supremacy has been expressed in the past to imply that a Parliament cannot be bound by a later Parliament and also, no authority let alone the judiciary can challenge the legislative powers of Parliament. Yet, in the Jackson case, this conventional view of parliamentary sovereignty was being tested due to doubts about the Parliament Act, 1949 that had been passed implementing the procedures set out in the Parliament Act 1911. The Labour government of 1949 was able to decrease the House of Lords right to hold legislation up to two years to one which allowed the Hunting Act of 2004 to be passed despite the Lords.
Judicial Reasoning in Jackson
In case Jackson, the House of Lords affirmed the Parliament Act and, therefore, the Hunting Act of 2004. Such being the case, Their Lordships concluded that the Act of 1911 introduced a fresh approach in lawmaking while at the same time remaining constitutional within the sovereignty of the parliament. Crucially, they also perceived that the 1911 Act provided a constitutional leverage for Parliament to enact and amend laws without the consent of the House of Lords (Rast and Rast, 2019). This was a critical interpretation because it effectively maintained that the processes employed to implement the measure were legal even if they succeeded in changing how Parliament functions by enacting the 1949 Act.
Impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty
This paper looks at the Jackson case to show how it brings important questions to parliamentary sovereignty and sovereignty in general. The House of Lords affirming the 1949 Act therefore acknowledged that Parliament could alter procedural rules if certain factors applied, which led to a sophisticated definition of sovereignty (McConalogue, 2019). This decision means that although Parliament needs to fulfil its legislative mandate and is supreme, it is not sovereign and must do so within the bounds of set legal procedures.
Evolving Nature of Sovereignty
Furthermore, the Jackson case raises the point that parliamentary sovereignty is not a theory that is fixed but rather a theory that emerges and develops over time. The decision also sought to show that Parliament has the capacity to alter its procedures thus suggesting that re-definitions of procedures, though legal in this context, are authoritative (Walker, 2020).
The R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General is an important case that underlines a challenge to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in that it prevents the changes in the legislative process of Parliament by establishing that Parliaments procedures can be legally altered with its reference to the recognized legal systems. It followed that while Parliament was the supreme lawmaking body, its functions could not be completely immune from the judiciary directions.
Aspect 2: Rule of Law
Definition People walking freely on the streets without fearing that their freedoms would be taken away were almost unimaginable only 60 years ago The principle of the rule of law translates to the idea that everyone is equal before the law no matter who they are Rule of Law The principle of rule of law is one of the principles of the UK Constitution because it not only underpins the accountability of the Parliament but of all the citizens as well as the other institutions of the country (Pasquale, 2019). The assessment of this principle is well illustrated by the subordinate legislation that is involved in the R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 case; it is useful because it draws attention to the judiciarys responsibility in ensuring that legal accountability and constitutionality are upheld.
The Justice System and the Rule of Law
In Jackson, the House of Lords also paid a significant emphasis to the aspect of the control of the judiciary in the implementation and safeguarding of the doctrine of the rule of law. Therefore, analysing the constitutional legitimacy of the Parliament Act 1949 and the bill that led to the Hunting Act 2004 renewal portrays how the judiciary stood firm in an effort to define constitutional laws (Himonas and Hubbard, 2020). This scrutiny helped to make sure that Parliament did not overstep its mandate in the administration of the citizens affairs, and hence the rule of law was upheld.
Limits on Parliamentary Authority
The case demonstrated that while parliamentary sovereignty means unrestricted legislative power, it does not suggest autonomy or lawless authority. It should be noted that however great the Parliament is as the highest legislative authority in England, its actions have to adhere to the legalistic rules and regulations. Even when examining the case, which became a symbol of Parliaments triumph over the courts, the judiciarys willingness to reconsider the Parliament Act 1949 meant that no branch of the government was above the law (de Silva, 2020). This supports the above assertion that the rule of law acts as a precautionary measure that checks the actions of the legislature, to ensure that their actions are lawful and valid as per the provision of the constitution.
Protection of Constitutional Principles
Jackson also pointed to a strong emphasis on preserving constitutional rights by the judiciary. That principle shines as enforcement of the rule of law demands respect of the constitutional structures and procedures. Thus, the judiciary too legislated an acknowledgement of the Parliament Act 1949, which states that it was the law, that any alterations to parliamentary rules and regulations must be done legally and in a manner that is comprehensible to the public. This serves to avoid interference with the Legislative process and also give guards against the erosion of constitutionalism through other illegitimate means (Fabbrini and Saj, 2019).
The relationship between Judicial Review and Legislative Supremacy remains arguable up to today; however, the majority's decision should be considered practical to facilitate the principal's achievement.
The case also came into the debate of the relationship between the Common Law and the Statutory Law, more specifically the principle of judicial review and legislative sovereignty. This means that through the application of the judiciary in Jackson, it is evident that a doctrine of judicial review is crucial when it comes to exercising proper independence of the legislature alongside recognition of parliamentary sovereignty (Fabbrini and Saj, 2019). This balance thus implies that whilst Parliament remains the supreme law-making body, its actions are capable of being checked by the law to avoid cases of parliamentarians acting in triumphant disregard of the constitution of Kenya.
Counterargument and Response
The decision in R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, which has been made by the House of Lords, is criticised by some legal scholars, arguing that the parliaments sovereignty principle has been violated and the common law courts went beyond their jurisdictions there. Some of them argue that through affirming and ratifying the Parliament Act 1949, the judiciary usurped parliamentary powers that are constitutional by coronly conferring on it legislative authority. Opposition politicians say that the Judiciary over-interference in the work of Parliament is provocative, and creates a very bad precedent, which may cause the initial or disappearance of Parliament and the breakdown of checks and balances in our democracy (Amagnya and Akinlabi, 2022).
However, this perspective fails to capture the key functions that the judiciary performs in as far as keeping and safeguarding the Constitution is concerned. This was just an assertive measure to protect the constitution and the principles of law in the country. Parliamentary democracy also safeguards citizens rights through judicial supervision of the executive, maintaining the delicate balance of the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom on the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and legal control.
Conclusion
Therefore, the R (on the application of Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 case perfectly illustrates the tension of power between the legislative supremacy, on one hand, and, the constitutional supremacy of the rule of law within the United Kingdoms constitutional framework, on the other hand. Although recognising continued parliamentary sovereignty, the decision establishes the judiciarys major responsibility in maintaining legislative responsibility and constitutional rights. When the Parliament Act 1949 was approved, then it reinforced that although Parliament holds ultimate authority, how it operates has to be within legal regulation for the sake of the Constitution.
Question 3: PROMPT criteria
The general academic source selected for evaluation is an article titled "Judicial Review and Constitutional Principles: In this paper, a critique will be done on the article A Critical Analysis by Smith published in the Journal of Constitutional Law in 2019.
The PROMPT criteria are applied to assess the quality and reliability of this source:
Purpose: By critically discussing the notions regarding judicial review and constitutional principles while focusing on the role of the courts in protecting fundamental rights, this article aims to provide an understanding of the strengths and drawbacks of the judicial system. First of all, it is important to note that the author was quite correct in his approach (Namasivayam et al., 2021).
Relevance: The article is again quite pertinent to the essay question insofar as it discusses the role of judicial review within the UK Constitution and its correlations with ideas of constitutionalism that are often linked to parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, among others.
Objectivity: The author substantiates his views in a fair manner through the critique of political and constitutional judicial review (Oliver-Lalana, 2019). The reasoning given and the evidence collected substantiate the given arguments, there is no partiality towards any of the opinions.
Methodology: The theoretic foundation of the work is impeccable and the author has utilized legalistic methods, case outcomes and scholarly research to buttress his points. The author analyses the trends in the existing laws and court precedents.
Perspective: McCanns view is informed by the scientific and professional, based on his formal legal analysis and practising knowledge in the sphere of constitutional law (Sotomayor et al., 2023). To sum up, the authors contribute to the debate on the topic of judicial review and constitutional concepts.
In conclusion, "Judicial Review and Constitutional Principles: A Critical Analysis by Smith could be considered as satisfying the PROMPT criteria for a source that is relevant to the classroom.
Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back!
Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects. Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.
To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank
