Cambridge BA: Parliamentary Sovereignty & Rule of Law Exam Paper

The Climate Emergency Act 2024 (fictional) contains s.15, which states: 'No court may review, question, or invalidate any decision made under this Act by the Secretary of State relating to carbon emissions targets. This provision is binding upon all courts including the Supreme Court and shall have effect notwithstanding any other enactment or rule of law.' The Act also contains s.23: 'This Act may not be repealed or amended except by a referendum achieving 75% approval from registered voters.' Following widespread protests about the Secretary of State's decision to exempt several major oil companies from emissions targets, Parliament passes the Climate Review Act 2025 (fictional) by simple majority, purporting to repeal the 2024 Act entirely. Environmental group GreenFuture seeks judicial review of both the Secretary of State's exemption decision and challenges the validity of the 2025 Act's repeal of the referendum requirement. The Attorney General argues that the courts lack jurisdiction over both matters. Advise GreenFuture on the likelihood of success in their judicial review application, considering the constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a political fact, not a legal rule.' (Professor Goldsworthy). Critically analyse this statement in light of recent constitutional developments and judicial attitudes towards parliamentary supremacy.

The Emergency Powers Act 2024 (fictional) grants the Prime Minister authority to make regulations 'for public safety and national security' without parliamentary approval during declared emergencies. Section 3 states: 'Emergency regulations may modify, suspend, or override any existing statutory provision or common law rule as the Prime Minister considers necessary.' Following a cyber-attack on critical infrastructure, the Prime Minister declares a national emergency and makes the Emergency Response Regulations 2024 (fictional). These regulations: (i) suspend habeas corpus and allow indefinite detention without charge for 'persons suspected of cyber-terrorism'; (ii) establish special tribunals with powers to impose sentences up to 20 years imprisonment, with no right of appeal; (iii) prohibit all reporting of emergency measures by media outlets; and (iv) require all internet service providers to install government monitoring software. Civil liberties group FreedomWatch challenges these regulations, arguing they violate fundamental constitutional principles and exceed the scope of the enabling Act. The Attorney General contends that the regulations fall within the broad discretionary power granted by Parliament and that courts cannot review emergency measures during national crises. Advise FreedomWatch on their prospects of successfully challenging the Emergency Response Regulations, considering both the scope of delegated powers and constitutional limitations on executive authority.

'The rule of law requires not merely that government action be authorised by law, but that law itself meets certain substantive standards of justice and fairness.' Discuss the extent to which English constitutional law recognises substantive conceptions of the rule of law.