R (Jackson) v Attorney General
E79901
R (Jackson) v Attorney General is a landmark 2005 House of Lords case that examined the constitutional validity of legislation enacted under the Parliament Acts and explored fundamental principles about the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| R (Jackson) v Attorney General canonical | 1 |
| Regina (Jackson and others) v Attorney General | 1 |
| judgment in R (Jackson) v Attorney General | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T640299 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: R (Jackson) v Attorney General Context triple: [Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, interpretedInCase, R (Jackson) v Attorney General]
-
A.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
County of Allegheny v. ACLU is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the interpretation of the Establishment Clause by addressing the constitutionality of religious holiday displays on government property.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
-
E.
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Cutter v. Wilkinson is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as applied to the religious rights of prison inmates.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: R (Jackson) v Attorney General Target entity description: R (Jackson) v Attorney General is a landmark 2005 House of Lords case that examined the constitutional validity of legislation enacted under the Parliament Acts and explored fundamental principles about the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.
-
A.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU
County of Allegheny v. ACLU is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the interpretation of the Establishment Clause by addressing the constitutionality of religious holiday displays on government property.
-
B.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
-
E.
Cutter v. Wilkinson
Cutter v. Wilkinson is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act as applied to the religious rights of prison inmates.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
House of Lords case
ⓘ
United Kingdom constitutional law case ⓘ judicial review case ⓘ |
| aroseFrom | challenge to the Hunting Act 2004 ⓘ |
| concerns |
constitutional limits of parliamentary sovereignty
ⓘ
interpretation of the Parliament Act 1911 ⓘ legislative procedure under the Parliament Acts ⓘ rule of law in the United Kingdom ⓘ validity of the Hunting Act 2004 ⓘ validity of the Parliament Act 1949 ⓘ |
| hasCitation |
[2005] 3 WLR 733
ⓘ
[2005] 4 All ER 1253 ⓘ [2006] 1 AC 262 ⓘ |
| hasClaimant |
Countryside Alliance supporters
ⓘ
pro-hunting campaigners ⓘ |
| hasCountry | England and Wales ⓘ |
| hasCourt |
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
ⓘ
surface form:
Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
|
| hasDecisionDate | 13 October 2005 ⓘ |
| hasDefendant |
Attorney General for England and Wales
ⓘ
surface form:
Attorney General of the United Kingdom
|
| hasFullName |
R (Jackson) v Attorney General
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Regina (Jackson and others) v Attorney General
|
| hasJudge |
Baroness Hale of Richmond
ⓘ
Lord Bingham of Cornhill ⓘ Lord Carswell ⓘ Lord Hope of Craighead ⓘ Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead ⓘ Lord Rodger of Earlsferry ⓘ Lord Steyn ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | United Kingdom ⓘ |
| hasKeyIssue |
whether the 1911 Act permitted its own amendment without the consent of the House of Lords
ⓘ
whether there are implied limits on the use of the Parliament Acts procedure ⓘ |
| hasNeutralCitation | [2005] UKHL 56 ⓘ |
| hasProceduralHistory | appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ⓘ |
| hasYear | 2005 ⓘ |
| held |
legislation made under the Parliament Acts is primary legislation
ⓘ
the 1911 Act created a new way of enacting primary legislation without the Lords ⓘ the Hunting Act 2004 was valid primary legislation ⓘ the Parliament Act 1949 was validly enacted ⓘ |
| includesDictum |
suggestion that courts might in extreme circumstances refuse to recognise certain legislation
ⓘ
suggestion that parliamentary sovereignty is a construct of the common law ⓘ |
| includesDictumBy |
Baroness Hale of Richmond
ⓘ
Lord Hope of Craighead ⓘ Lord Steyn ⓘ |
| isLandmarkFor |
doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty
ⓘ
principle of the rule of law ⓘ relationship between Parliament and the courts ⓘ scope of judicial review of constitutional legislation ⓘ |
| legalArea |
constitutional law
ⓘ
legislative process ⓘ public law ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: R (Jackson) v Attorney General Description of subject: R (Jackson) v Attorney General is a landmark 2005 House of Lords case that examined the constitutional validity of legislation enacted under the Parliament Acts and explored fundamental principles about the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law in the UK.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
R (Jackson) v Attorney General
→
hasFullName
→
R (Jackson) v Attorney General
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Regina (Jackson and others) v Attorney General
this entity surface form:
judgment in R (Jackson) v Attorney General