Well, yes, there's some nuance here. Where there's an Act of Parliament that says courts can dis-apply other Acts of Parliament then the courts can do so.
But the Human Rights Act does not do this, even though it has quasi-constitutional status, and as far as I know now that the European Communities Act has been repealed no Act of Parliament does this.
A better case to cite than Factortame would be R (Jackson) v Attorney General, where the House of Lords (in its judicial function before that was removed to the Supreme Court) entertained the idea that in extremis parliamentary sovereignty was not absolute.
If the government continues its showdown over Rwanda the Supreme Court might be forced to re-visit that idea.
But the law as it is applied right now means that courts cannot overturn actsof Parliament.
But the Human Rights Act does not do this, even though it has quasi-constitutional status, and as far as I know now that the European Communities Act has been repealed no Act of Parliament does this.
A better case to cite than Factortame would be R (Jackson) v Attorney General, where the House of Lords (in its judicial function before that was removed to the Supreme Court) entertained the idea that in extremis parliamentary sovereignty was not absolute.
If the government continues its showdown over Rwanda the Supreme Court might be forced to re-visit that idea.
But the law as it is applied right now means that courts cannot overturn actsof Parliament.