IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxjlsj/v42y2022i3p918-942..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Piercing the Parliamentary Veil against Judicial Review: The Case against Parliamentary Privilege

Author

Listed:
  • Edward Lui

Abstract

For centuries, parliamentary privilege has stood as a bar against judicial review over the internal affairs of Parliament. The literature surrounding parliamentary privilege has mostly been about the scope of the privilege; few have discussed if the existence of the privilege itself is justified. This article undertakes that task, by examining parliamentary privilege as a defence against judicial review. Three propositions will be made. First, in the context of judicial review, parliamentary privilege is defined by the outer limits of the principle of exclusive cognisance. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 adds nothing. Second, parliamentary privilege as it relates to judicial review is incompatible with the two prevailing models of the separation of powers. Third, six arguments that may be made in favour of parliamentary privilege will be refuted. Accordingly, parliamentary privilege should no longer provide a defence towards judicial review.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward Lui, 2022. "Piercing the Parliamentary Veil against Judicial Review: The Case against Parliamentary Privilege," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 918-942.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:918-942.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqac008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:918-942.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ojls .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.