Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke
Constitutional conventions, however strong, do not limit the legal power of Parliament to legislate.
Facts
In 1965 the government of Southern Rhodesia, a British colony, made a unilateral declaration of independence. The UK Parliament responded by passing the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, declaring that Southern Rhodesia remained part of Her Majesty's dominions and that the UK government retained responsibility for it. Mr Madzimbamuto was detained under emergency regulations made by the illegal government, and his wife challenged the lawfulness of his detention.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that the detention was unlawful, because the regulations were made by an illegal regime that had no legal authority. Lord Reid said that it was often said that it would be unconstitutional for the UK Parliament to do certain things, because the moral, political and other reasons against doing them are so strong that most people would regard it as highly improper if Parliament did them. But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them, the courts could not hold the Act of Parliament invalid. Conventions do not limit the legal sovereignty of Parliament.
Related cases on parliamentary sovereignty
- British Coal Corp v The King [1935] AC 500
- Cheney v Conn [1968] 1 WLR 242
- 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
- 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.
