Cheney v Conn
A taxpayer cannot challenge an Act of Parliament on the ground that it conflicts with international law.
Facts
Mr Cheney objected to paying income tax because part of the money raised would be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. He argued that this was contrary to the Geneva Conventions, which the UK had ratified and partly incorporated through the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, and that the tax assessment made under the Finance Act 1964 was therefore invalid.
Legal principle
Ungoed-Thomas J dismissed the claim. What the statute itself enacts cannot be unlawful, because what the statute says and provides is itself the law, and the highest form of law known to this country. It is not for the court to say that a parliamentary enactment, the highest law in this country, is illegal. Where a statute is clear, it must be applied even if it conflicts with the UK's obligations under international law, which are relevant only as an aid to interpreting ambiguous legislation.
Related cases on parliamentary sovereignty
- British Coal Corp v The King [1935] AC 500
- Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchope (1842) 8 Cl & F 710
- Ellen Street Estates Ltd v Minister of Health [1934] 1 KB 590
- Lee v Bude and Torrington Junction Railway Co (1871) LR 6 CP 576
- MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396
- Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645
- Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77
- Mortensen v Peters (1906) 8 F (J) 93
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
