Key Facts

• Dicey's principle of Parliamentary sovereignty confers on Parliament the right to make or unmake any law.
• Any Act of Parliament or part thereof that makes new law or modifies existing law will be obeyed by the courts, according to A. V. Dicey.
• The Bill aims to address the misuse of judicial review but is deemed insufficient by the MP.
• The new clause is tabled in response to the Privacy International v. Investigatory Powers Tribunal case.
• For 19 years, before the Privacy International judgment, section 67 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was recognized as an ouster clause excluding judicial review.
• The new clause seeks to reverse the Supreme Court’s judgment and reinstate Parliament's clear legislative intent.
• The Bill aims to prevent judicial review decisions from setting rules for future hypothetical cases, thereby protecting parliamentary sovereignty.
• Professor Ekins stated that Privacy International case constituted a 'very serious attack' on constitutional questions regarding parliamentary sovereignty and stability of statute.
• Other Acts such as the Intelligence Services Act 1994, Security Service Act 1989, and Police Act 1997 contain ouster clauses that could be challenged based on the Privacy International case.
• New clause 5 aims to restrict evidence testing in judicial reviews.
• It addresses the issue of public bodies being compelled to disclose information when matters are non-justiciable or excluded by legislation.
• The clause seeks to prevent courts from focusing on questions of fact rather than law.
• Lord Sumption commented on the proper functions of courts in his Reith lecture.
• Jonathan Sumption stated that judges should not circumvent parliamentary legislation or review policy decisions for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament.
• The MP supports the Attorney General's efforts to address what the courts have 'got wrong' recently.