A Comment about ‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ consent and Trial by Jury

...Inspired by the ‘Peacekeepers’ challenge and ensuing civil claim

Leaving aside the details of the challenge and the contractual issues arising, I am concerned as to our state of moral degradation if we really believe that the seat of the the highest law is with Parliament. Do people really believe that Parliament could make any law it liked and we must obey? It is one thing to say that we cannot refuse to consent to the Theft Act (which aligns with Natural Law), but what if a piece of legislation said that at 16, every man must be castrated in order to protect women, would we consent to that?

If you truly believe that we cannot withdraw consent to any legislation created by parliament, then, in Nazi Germany, you would have handed the Jewish person over to the authorities.

Even on just a practical level, we must decide at the point of being asked to comply, whether or not we consent to doing the act, or not doing the act that the legislation purports to demand. Unless performance is compelled through direct force, then we must consent, or not, to the demand. If we are forced physically, then we have not consented either.

If we are not able to withhold consent at the point where we are 'required' to comply, then we are merely following orders—this was outlawed at Nuremberg, but the principle seems to have been obscured nowadays.

If we do not comply with the legislation then the state may prosecute us and imprison us maybe... But, this is where the jury comes in.

It should be the case that, unless a jury of our peers agrees, then no enforcement against us may take place. If you don't believe this, what on earth do you think HH Rivlin KC is going on about when he says:

"Lord Bingham insisted that the right of the jury to return the verdict it ‘collectively believes is the true one’ must be inalienable – ‘even if the verdict might appear perverse or contrary to what an experienced judge or lawyer thinks.’ I have no doubt that when new legislation is being considered by Parliament, or decisions are taken by prosecutors, the inescapable, sobering, thought hovering in the minds of each is, or should be: ‘Could we ever get this past a jury?’ We should realise that under the new proposals [Courts and Tribunals Bill 2026] if a Government wishes to whittle away at our freedoms, it only has to ensure that the maximum sentence for any transgression will be one of three years."

Or Lord Erskine, here:

"Criminal Justice in the hands of the people is the basis of freedom. While that remains there can be no tyranny, because the people will not execute tyrannical law against themselves. Whenever it is lost, liberty must fall along with it."

Or Sir Patrick Devlin, quoted by Lord Bingham here in R v Wang:

"That the last word should rest with the jury remains, as Sir Patrick Devlin, writing in 1956, said (Hamlyn Lectures, pp 160, 162): ‘an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man’s idea of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement... The executive knows that in dealing with the liberty of the subject it must not do anything which would seriously disturb the conscience of the average Member of Parliament or of the average juryman. I know of no other real checks that exist today upon the power of the executive.' "

These statements not only explain the fundamental importance of the Jury, but, implicit in each of them is the fact that a man can consent, or not, to abide by the legislation in the first place—that we have the option (some would say, duty) not to comply with immoral laws, and the Jury is there to protect us in this. It is implicit in this that Parliament may not pass any law it likes—or at least, if it does, it cannot force compliance—that is a decision for the person at the point of being asked to comply, and for the Jury to provide a consequence, or not, for non-compliance.

The fact that most people believe that it is within the jurisdiction of Parliament to remove juries, therefore, is incredibly dangerous. Particularly since the people also allowed Parliament to remove many of the checks and balances upon itself.

Of course, it is much easier to be able to call people making such points pseudo-lawyers, because then we don't have to have the conversation at all, and those who would seek to secure more power for the state would really like that.

Link to the judgement in Hodder v Peacekeepers Foundation, 13th March 2026:

https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2026004926/2026ewcc37_TNA/html

LW
26th August 2026