The Quasi-Entrenchment of Constitutional Statutes

Farrah Ahmed, Adam Perry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The British constitution is famously unentrenched: constitutional laws are not intrinsically more difficult to override than ordinary laws. However, in the largely overlooked 2012 case of H v Lord Advocate, the Supreme Court said that the Scotland Act 1998 cannot be impliedly repealed due to its “fundamental constitutional” status. Unless judicial thinking changes, courts in the future may treat constitutional statutes, like the Scotland Act, as capable only of express repeal, making such statutes “quasi-entrenched”. In this article, we argue that, as a judicial innovation, the quasi-entrenchment of constitutional statutes lacks a sound legal basis. Parliament can make its intention to repeal a constitutional statute clear without making it express, and judges cannot, on their own initiative, ignore Parliament's clear decision to repeal even a constitutional statute.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)514-535
Number of pages22
JournalCambridge Law Journal
Volume73
Issue number3
Early online date14 Oct 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2014

Fingerprint

statute
parliament
act
legal basis
constitutional law
Supreme Court
constitution
innovation
Law
lack

Keywords

  • constitutional statutes
  • implied repeal
  • entrenchment
  • Thoburn

Cite this

The Quasi-Entrenchment of Constitutional Statutes. / Ahmed, Farrah ; Perry, Adam.

In: Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 73, No. 3, 11.2014, p. 514-535.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ahmed, Farrah ; Perry, Adam. / The Quasi-Entrenchment of Constitutional Statutes. In: Cambridge Law Journal. 2014 ; Vol. 73, No. 3. pp. 514-535.
@article{02aa3f008b004796aa88188184509a06,
title = "The Quasi-Entrenchment of Constitutional Statutes",
abstract = "The British constitution is famously unentrenched: constitutional laws are not intrinsically more difficult to override than ordinary laws. However, in the largely overlooked 2012 case of H v Lord Advocate, the Supreme Court said that the Scotland Act 1998 cannot be impliedly repealed due to its “fundamental constitutional” status. Unless judicial thinking changes, courts in the future may treat constitutional statutes, like the Scotland Act, as capable only of express repeal, making such statutes “quasi-entrenched”. In this article, we argue that, as a judicial innovation, the quasi-entrenchment of constitutional statutes lacks a sound legal basis. Parliament can make its intention to repeal a constitutional statute clear without making it express, and judges cannot, on their own initiative, ignore Parliament's clear decision to repeal even a constitutional statute.",
keywords = "constitutional statutes, implied repeal, entrenchment, Thoburn",
author = "Farrah Ahmed and Adam Perry",
year = "2014",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1017/S0008197314000841",
language = "English",
volume = "73",
pages = "514--535",
journal = "Cambridge Law Journal",
issn = "0008-1973",
publisher = "Stevens & Sons",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Quasi-Entrenchment of Constitutional Statutes

AU - Ahmed, Farrah

AU - Perry, Adam

PY - 2014/11

Y1 - 2014/11

N2 - The British constitution is famously unentrenched: constitutional laws are not intrinsically more difficult to override than ordinary laws. However, in the largely overlooked 2012 case of H v Lord Advocate, the Supreme Court said that the Scotland Act 1998 cannot be impliedly repealed due to its “fundamental constitutional” status. Unless judicial thinking changes, courts in the future may treat constitutional statutes, like the Scotland Act, as capable only of express repeal, making such statutes “quasi-entrenched”. In this article, we argue that, as a judicial innovation, the quasi-entrenchment of constitutional statutes lacks a sound legal basis. Parliament can make its intention to repeal a constitutional statute clear without making it express, and judges cannot, on their own initiative, ignore Parliament's clear decision to repeal even a constitutional statute.

AB - The British constitution is famously unentrenched: constitutional laws are not intrinsically more difficult to override than ordinary laws. However, in the largely overlooked 2012 case of H v Lord Advocate, the Supreme Court said that the Scotland Act 1998 cannot be impliedly repealed due to its “fundamental constitutional” status. Unless judicial thinking changes, courts in the future may treat constitutional statutes, like the Scotland Act, as capable only of express repeal, making such statutes “quasi-entrenched”. In this article, we argue that, as a judicial innovation, the quasi-entrenchment of constitutional statutes lacks a sound legal basis. Parliament can make its intention to repeal a constitutional statute clear without making it express, and judges cannot, on their own initiative, ignore Parliament's clear decision to repeal even a constitutional statute.

KW - constitutional statutes

KW - implied repeal

KW - entrenchment

KW - Thoburn

U2 - 10.1017/S0008197314000841

DO - 10.1017/S0008197314000841

M3 - Article

VL - 73

SP - 514

EP - 535

JO - Cambridge Law Journal

JF - Cambridge Law Journal

SN - 0008-1973

IS - 3

ER -