This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
This fact became significant in the wake of passage of the Hunting Act 2004 which was also passed using the Parliament Acts. The passage of that Act was challenged in Court on the basis that the Parliament Act 1949 itself had been unlawfully passed. If true, then the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 would also be invalid, however this point would be moot since the provisions had been consolidated in legislation not passed under the Parliament Acts. The challenge to the Hunting Act was ultimately unsuccessful.
I had removed the above statement because I thought it wrong. On further consideration it's not wrong but it'll be helpful if clarified. Looking at the PA 1949 subarticle, it appears it just extended the length the bill could be delayed. From what I can tell, even with out the 2003 bill, the length of time since the bill was introduced would mean it probably could have been passed under the older 1911. On the other hand, if 1949 was invalid, this wouldn't matter since the bill had passed under 1949 so any laws passed under it would still be invalid even if they could have been passed under 1911 Nil Einne 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the relevant section. You are essentially correct - the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 was passed using the Parliament Acts under the assumption that the 1949 Act was valid, and hence was only passed just under two years after the initial passage. If the 1949 Act was invalid, then the paperwork done by the Speaker to pass the Act would also be invalid (since it would have been done at a time the 1911 Act would not have allowed). For passage to be attained solely under the 1911 Act then the Commons would have to pass the Bill during the 2001 Parliament and then have the Speaker do that paperwork, something which obviously never happened.
Thus, if we lose the 1949 Act, we lose this Act, however, we are rescued by the fact that most of its provisions continue in other laws. --New Progressive 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
