Jersey’s Relationship With The UK Parliament Revisited

This article builds on the Jowell hypothesis of Jersey’s relationship with the United Kingdom Parliament. It analyses the claims for Parliament’s paramount power over Jersey in terms of the domestic British theories for Parliamentary Supremacy. The view that Parliamentary Supremacy derives from common law cannot apply to Jersey, and if it rests on the “political facts”, this would suggest a colonial relationship requiring Jersey to be registered with the United Nations as a non-self-governing territory. This would trigger an international law decolonization duty. Following British principles of construction, clear words would be required for a statute to have effect regardless of Jersey’s consent. Assuming Parliament does have paramount power in Jersey, any statute extended to Jersey would be presumed to take effect subject to local consent. The United Kingdom’s practical power over Jersey rests on the fact that the royal prerogative in Jersey is exercised on the advice of British ministers. It is argued that there is no principled basis for judicially reviewing the grant of royal assent, but Ministerial advice to deny royal assent will bedifficult to justify on principled constitutional grounds.