In discussing the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, Lord Hoffmann considered the principle of 'legality'. While acknowledging that ultimately the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meant that Parliament could enact legislation contrary to fundamental human rights, he nonetheless noted:

'But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts in the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document.'