[pjc50]

> It's worth noting that UK courts can't overturn Acts of Parliament

Eh. I think that grossly understates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary... ; while it does not remove the law from the books, incompatibility with ECJ rulings does effectively disapply the law.

This is why there's such a fight over the Rwanda bill: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68283703 . ECHR is effectively constitutional law in the UK, not an ordinary Act of Parliament. Courts have ruled that deporting people to dangerous countries breaches ECHR. The government is trying to legislate the ""fact"" that Rwanda is ""safe"" in order to circumvent that, because they're not quite yet ready to throw out ECHR entirely and haven't had decades to pack the courts.

[M2Ys4U]

Well, yes, there's some nuance here. Where there's an Act of Parliament that says courts can dis-apply other Acts of Parliament then the courts can do so.

But the Human Rights Act does not do this, even though it has quasi-constitutional status, and as far as I know now that the European Communities Act has been repealed no Act of Parliament does this.

A better case to cite than Factortame would be R (Jackson) v Attorney General, where the House of Lords (in its judicial function before that was removed to the Supreme Court) entertained the idea that in extremis parliamentary sovereignty was not absolute.

If the government continues its showdown over Rwanda the Supreme Court might be forced to re-visit that idea.

But the law as it is applied right now means that courts cannot overturn actsof Parliament.