C/L/121. Whatever the courts might have said in the past, there are now circumstances when use of the doctrine of implied repeal is inappropriate

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution to govern the affairs of the country, which it has been argued would create a system that allows the absolute power of the government to rule the nation and may result in tyranny. Dicey's theory argues that because there is no written constitution this does not mean that the government is being left to its own devices. Dicey suggested that two of the main fundamental pillars of the United Kingdom unwritten constitution are the doctrines of parliamentary supremacy or sovereignty and the rule of law. There are instances where these doctrines clash, because a statute made by the current parliament could clash with a law from a previous parliament; therefore which statute should be applied? The easy answer that English law created is that the current law supersedes an earlier parliament, which creates the doctrine of implied repeal. Therefore this discussion is going to discuss the pillars of Dicean theory and the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law and how the doctrine of implied repeal is important to uphold these doctrines; however there are problems with this doctrine, which the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) have brought to the doctrine.