🏠 Home Detailed notes Codification grid Predicted Q2(b) notes

How to use this

Two grids on the same template. The first is empty - print it, fill in each cell with a one-line note while you revise. The second is a worked example to check yourself against.

Each cell asks one question: does this row strengthen the column quality (mark +) or weaken it (mark -)? Then add a one-line note saying why. The plus and minus columns are deliberately not pre-printed - your judgement is the work.

Real legal limit = did this create a legal constraint courts could enforce against an Act? Political limit in practice = did this constrain what Parliament can realistically do? Reversible by statute = can Parliament undo this constraint by ordinary Act? Dicey rule 1 broken = was Parliament actually stopped from making or unmaking a law? Dicey rule 3 broken = did another body override an Act of Parliament? Sovereignty recovered = has Parliament since taken the power back? Significant erosion = your overall judgement: does this row significantly erode sovereignty?

Parliamentary sovereignty - judgement grid +   -

Empty version. Print and fill in.
Challenge+   - Real legal limit Political limit in practice Reversible by statute Dicey rule 1 broken Dicey rule 3 broken Sovereignty recovered Significant erosion
EU
membership
(1973-2020)
Devolution
(1998-)
Human
Rights Act
(1998)
Referendums
(1975-2016)
Judicial
review and
the Court
Brexit +
Rwanda Act
(2020-24)
How to use the grid in an essay. Every cell is measured against Dicey's three rules: Parliament can make or unmake any law; no Parliament binds its successor; no other body can override an Act. Pick the column the question turns on (Reversible by statute and Significant erosion carry the 30-marker). Read down it, and group paragraphs by the cluster - not challenge-by-challenge description.

Parliamentary sovereignty - judgement grid +   -

Filled version. Use this to check your own grid - and tap any cell for the full detail behind the judgement.
Challenge+   - Real legal limit Political limit in practice Reversible by statute Dicey rule 1 broken Dicey rule 3 broken Sovereignty recovered Significant erosion
EU
membership
(1973-2020)		 +EU law primacy; Factortame (1990) disapplied parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. +Deep integration made exit costly - but not impossible. +The ECA 1972 was repealed by ordinary statute in 2018-20. -Parliament could always legislate to leave - and did. +For 47 years UK courts could disapply UK statutes - the only true breach. +Brexit recovered the pooled powers in full. -Real while it lasted, gone now - erosion that proved reversible.
Devolution
(1998-)		 -Statutory grants; Westminster keeps the legal power to legislate (Internal Market Act 2020 proved it). +Abolishing Holyrood is politically unthinkable; Sewel manages the politics. +The devolution Acts are repealable in law. -Westminster can still make any law - and has, over devolved objections. -No devolved body can override an Act of Parliament. -Nothing to recover - the legal power never left. -Political transformation; legal sovereignty intact.
Human
Rights Act
(1998)		 -Courts declare incompatibility; they cannot strike down an Act. +The political cost of ignoring a declaration is real (Belmarsh led to the 2005 Act). +Amendable and disappliable - the Rwanda Act 2024 did exactly that. -Parliament can legislate incompatibly in clear words. -A declaration has no legal force over the Act. -Nothing lost in law to recover. -Influence, not erosion.
Referendums
(1975-2016)		 -Advisory in law - Parliament was not legally bound even by 2016. +Politically binding in practice - no Parliament dared ignore 2016. +Each referendum requires an Act; Parliament sets the terms. -Parliament legislated for Brexit itself - sovereignty exercised, not lost. -No referendum result overrides an Act. -Nothing lost in law to recover. +The one arguably real erosion - sovereignty in practice now shared with the electorate on the biggest questions.
Judicial
review and
the Court		 -Courts police prerogative, not statute. +Governments adjust behaviour in anticipation of review. +Parliament can and does legislate to reverse rulings. -Miller 1 demanded MORE parliamentary law-making, not less. -No court has struck down an Act. +The Rwanda Act 2024 showed the last word in action. -The courts have served sovereignty more than they limit it.
Brexit +
Rwanda Act
(2020-24)		 -The era removed legal constraints rather than adding them. -Westminster acted over devolved objection and judicial defeat alike. +All of it ordinary statute. -Parliament made and unmade the biggest laws of the age. -The Court accepted the Rwanda Act - no override of an Act occurred. +The recovery era itself: Factortame unwound, the Court answered by statute. -The strongest evidence sovereignty is intact - arguably stronger than ever.
What the filled grid shows. Read down the columns. Reversible by statute is plus in every row - every supposed erosion can be undone by ordinary Act, which is the disagree side's whole argument. Real legal limit has a single plus: EU membership, the one constraint that let courts disapply statutes - and Brexit removed it. Significant erosion earns its only plus on referendums, where the political location of sovereignty has arguably moved towards the electorate. The judgement line: legal sovereignty is intact - arguably stronger than ever after 2020-24 - while political sovereignty is increasingly shared.
See also
David Clayton Tutoring | davidjclayton@proton.me