Mortensen v Peters
Courts must apply an Act of Parliament even if it conflicts with international law.
Facts
Mr Mortensen, a Danish citizen who was the master of a Norwegian registered trawler, was convicted of fishing using a method prohibited by a byelaw made under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act 1889. He was fishing in the Moray Firth, more than three miles from the coast, which under international law at the time was outside British territorial waters. He argued that the Act and byelaw could not apply to a foreigner fishing outside territorial waters, because that would be contrary to international law.
Legal principle
The High Court of Justiciary upheld the conviction. Lord Dunedin said that in this court we have nothing to do with the question of whether the legislature has or has not done what foreign powers may consider a usurpation in a question with them. An Act of Parliament, duly passed by Lords and Commons and assented to by the King, is supreme, and the court is bound to give effect to its terms. The Act clearly applied to the whole of the Moray Firth, so it had to be enforced, whatever the position in international law.
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
- Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645
- Manuel v Attorney General [1983] Ch 77
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.
