Intention, supremacy and the theories of judicial review

McGarry, John ORCID: 0000-0002-5590-7115 (2016) Intention, supremacy and the theories of judicial review. Routledge Publishing, Abingdon. ISBN 978-1-13-885601-1

Full text not available from this repository.
Official URL: https://www.routledge.com/Intention-Supremacy-and-...

Abstract

In the late 1980s, a vigorous debate began about how we may best justify, in constitutional terms, the English courts’ jurisdiction to judicially review the exercise of public power derived from an Act of Parliament. Two rival theories emerged in this debate, the ultra vires theory and the common law theory. The debate between the supporters of these two theories has never satisfactorily been resolved and has been criticised as being futile. Yet, the debate raises some fundamental questions about the constitution of the United Kingdom, particularly: the relationship between Parliament and the courts; the nature of parliamentary supremacy in the contemporary constitution; and the possibility and validity of relying on legislative intent. This book critically analyses the ultra vires and common law theories and argues that neither offers a convincing explanation for the courts’ judicial review jurisdiction. Instead, the author puts forward the theory that parliamentary supremacy – and, in turn, the relationship between Parliament and the courts – is not absolute and does not operate in a hard and fast way but, rather, functions in a more flexible way and that the courts will balance particular Acts of Parliament against competing statutes or principles. McGarry argues that this new conception of parliamentary supremacy leads to an alternative theory of judicial review which significantly differs from both the ultra vires and common law theories.

Item Type: Book
Divisions: School of Law
Depositing User: Tracey Gill
Date Deposited: 07 Sep 2018 12:56
Last Modified: 25 Sep 2019 14:00
URI: http://ubir.bolton.ac.uk/id/eprint/1911

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item