Cheney v Conn [1968] 1 All ER 779
Affirmed statutes could not be held illegal by the judiciary as this would challenge the principle of Parliamentary supremacy.
Facts
The claimant, Cheney, asserted that the tax obligations placed on British citizens by the Finance Act 1964 were unlawful as the government partially used funds raised through taxation to fund nuclear weapons research, which contravened the Geneva Convention, as incorporated into English law by the Geneva Convention Act 1957. In defense, Conn (Inspector of Taxes) contended that the specific destination of tax funds was irrelevant to the legality of such taxation.
Issues
Whether the eventual usage of tax money and purpose for which it was collected could affect the legality of statutory taxation obligations.
Decision/Outcome
The High Court found for the defendant, with Ungoed-Thomas J stating ‘If the purpose for which a statute may be used is an invalid purpose, then such remedy as there may be must be directed to dealing with that purpose and not to invalidating the statute itself’ [x]. He further reasoned that statutes are innately incapable of being illegal as the statute is itself law. As statutes are laws enacted by Parliament, to challenge them would be to challenge Parliament’s legislative supremacy. Whilst it should be generally assumed in legislative interpretation that Parliament was not seeking to override international commitments, they could undoubtedly do so if they wished and thus should any conflict arise between a statute and a convention, statutory law succeeds. Ultimately, ‘What Parliament enacts is the highest form of law’ [x].
Words: 257
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately represents the decision in Cheney v Conn [1968] 1 All ER 779 and the legal principles it established regarding parliamentary supremacy and the relationship between statute and international conventions.
The core constitutional principle affirmed in this case — that Acts of Parliament cannot be invalidated by the judiciary, and that statute prevails over inconsistent international treaty obligations in domestic law — remains good law. It continues to be cited as a foundational authority on parliamentary sovereignty in the UK constitution. Later constitutional developments, including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UK’s former membership of the EU, created qualified exceptions to absolute parliamentary supremacy in practice (notably the power of courts under s.4 HRA 1998 to issue declarations of incompatibility, and, prior to Brexit, the Factortame principle). However, these developments do not disturb the specific ratio of Cheney v Conn regarding the relationship between statute and unincorporated or indirectly incorporated international law, which remains accurately stated. Readers should be aware that the broader constitutional landscape has evolved considerably since 1968, and this case should be understood alongside later authorities on parliamentary sovereignty such as R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5.
