The In his dissenting judgement, Lord However,

The case of R (On the Application of Evans) v Attorney
General  was a landmark case that set
aside a statutory provision in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that allowed
a . Evans, a Guardian journalist, had requested disclosure of correspondence
between Prince Charles and government ministers under the FOIA 2000. Allan
asserts that. The test for whether the information should be released was As
per this rule, the Upper Tribunal ruled in favour of disclosure, however the
Attorney General invoked section 53 of the Act, allowing for an to provide a
certificate stating that he has’ formed the opinion that the statute falls
within the boundaries of exception, and that there need not be any disclosure.
While on the first hearing, the Divisional Court upheld the certificate, the
Court of Appeal saw it as illegal. The case made its way to the Supreme Court,
with a majority ruling in favour that the Attorney General was unable to issue
the certificate. In his dissenting judgement, Lord


However, this may have changed recently. Dicey’s own
theories state that no person or body could question the legitimacy of
Parliament. This was explored in the case of R (On the Application of Miller) v
Secretary of Exiting the European Union, which affirmed the fact that the
executive was subordinate to Parliament. Miller found that the Secretary of
State for Exiting the European Union was unable to use the Royal prerogative to
repeal the European Communities Act 1972. This is in keeping with Diceyan orthodoxy,
as, because of the existence of the separation of powers, the executive is
thought of as a separate entity to Parliament. Dicey himself stated that
parliamentary sovereignty means that there can be no ‘  and Miller found that this assertion was
true. Despite Lord Reed’s ‘powerful’ judgement, that leaving the European Union
was indeed under the Secretary of State’s jurisdiction, the European
Communities Act 1972 neither. Indeed, as stated in the majority judgement:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

While there can be no doubt that it is within the Secretary
of State’s jurisdiction to enter and withdraw from international treaties under
the Royal prerogative, there can also be no doubt that, as per the European
Communities Act 1972, that EU Treaties are not international law;. In short,
Parliament is sovereign over the executive and Miller found that there was no
statutory provision in the 1972 Act that would allow for the Secretary of State
to repeal it and leave the European Union without parliamentary approval.

The second of Dicey’s features of parliamentary sovereignty
is that Parliament may make or unmake any law it chooses. This was explored in
the case of Blackburn v Attorney General , where the issue for the courts was
whether Parliament had the right to sign the Maastricht Treaty as signing it
meant that the sovereignty of Parliament would have been curbed.

In summary, most of the features of Dicey’s traditional
account of parliamentary sovereignty remain accurate. While subject to
practical, political and conventional limitations, Parliament can, in theory,
make and unmake any laws it chooses. However, there is doubt as to whether Acts
of Parliament cannot be declared illegal. Factortame leads us to believe that
there currently exists a body which may set aside legislation enacted by Parliament,
while Miller and Evans both show that the executive is not capable of setting
aside, or questioning, Acts of Parliament.