Rule of law in the United Kingdom

Edit links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The

Northern Ireland, to legal doctrines known as the general principles of law. It has evolved to work only alongside equal application of the law to all free people 'equality before the law' and within the framework of the constitutional monarchy supports the legal doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty
. Exactly what it entails beyond this and the way that different aspects of the rule of law principle are applied, depends on the specific situation and era.

Among recognised academics in this field are

Albert Dicey, Joseph Raz (building on thoughts by Friedrich Hayek) and Trevor Allan
, who have proposed contrasting ideas about the scope of the rule of law: specifically, whether the emphasis is on legal form or substantive content and normatively if it should be.

Ideas

The rule of law is emphasised through many separate ideas. Among them are that

Albert Venn Dicey described the rule of law as acting in three ways: the predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power; equality before the law; and, that constitutional laws are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals.[2]

The specific checking of arbitrary power is its oldest and most definitive concept as a consequence of

absolute monarchs
on the throne. The key clause in the document has been consistently translated from identical, though abbreviated, Latin.

To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

This was by the 14th century interpreted by Parliament as guaranteeing trial by jury.[3][4]

Similarly, in Scotland, a parliament evolved. Before its union with England and Wales in 1707 the Parliament of Scotland was long portrayed as a constitutionally defective body[5] that acted merely as a rubber stamp for royal decisions, but research during the early 21st century has found that it played an active role in Scottish affairs, and was sometimes a thorn in the side of the Scottish crown.[6]

The enforcement of the doctrine of

Slave Trade Act of 1807 and Slavery Abolition Act 1833
, that equality before the law throughout the Empire was in a formal legal sense achieved in this respect.

The

Privy Council) and the court system. All of these three groups of institutions have proven wary of upsetting or offending the others, adopting conventions designed to ensure their long-term integrity and hence self-preservation.[4]

After ordinary executive decisions were delegated, such as to a

Factortame I and IV decisions and executive actions in judicial reviews often based on the Human Rights Act 1998 (and in turn or separately the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenants). These developments have entrenched the doctrine of the rule of law as part of the constitution.[4]

Prevention of crime

Law and order requires the prevention of crime as well as the contribution of authorities, and as such it does not matter by what means these are achieved, or what the characteristics of the law are. This concept of the rule of the law can, therefore, be upheld by even the most tyrannical dictatorship. Such a regime may allow for the normal operation of courts between private parties, and the limited questioning of the government within the dictatorial framework.

Freedom of expression and action seems to be what the prevention of crime allows citizens; therefore, limiting it by autocratic means has been considered incompatible with the rule of law. However, the picture is much clearer in the other direction: for democracy to thrive, the rule of law (in this limited sense) must be observed.[7]

Legal form

R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2), an Order in Council of the British government was found to have no basis in law by a minority of judges on final appeal. Additional powers can be granted to actors on behalf of the government only through parliament. In the United Kingdom, sanctions for departing from these rules come through ordinary court procedure; in other countries they may be assigned to designated courts.[9] Government departments are directly liable for damage caused by their acts; however, the sovereign retains immunity from prosecution. This immunity runs wider that the Head of State of other countries, for example, the President of the United States may be impeached then put on trial.[11] In M v Home Office the Home Secretary was found to be liable for contempt of court. On the other hand, Acts of Parliament that contravene basic rights – such as the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists – whilst adhering to this concept of the rule of law.[12]

This is identified by Dicey as part of his first conception: "a man may with us be punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else".[2]

Substantive content

Any substantive version of the rule of law as it applies to the United Kingdom asks normative questions about what rules the government should be under, rather than merely ensuring it follows those it is under. The rule of law is thus likely to be invoked when considering controversial powers of the government that stray from precedent, depart from the

European Convention of Human Rights as embodied in the Human Rights Act 1998, and break new legislative ground.[13]

This interpretation is particularly controversial. If the rule of law is to enforce specific "constitutional" or "core" rights, what they should be is difficult to decide. Among them are questions of whether ideas such as the right not to be held indefinitely without trial, deemed contrary to the Convention in

A v Home Secretary, could ever be deemed appropriate if circumstances changed.[14] In R. ex parte (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (2008), the defendant public prosecution body chief was deemed to allow national security considerations to take precedence over a thorough investigation into alleged bribery in certain arms deals, which is that departure from completely equal application of the law (including its application to the Crown) in order to protect life may result in a perceived breach of the modern-day rule of law.[14]

House of Commons.[15] The rule of law is contrasted with rule by men, and the arbitrary power one man might exercise over the other – the people require protection from the government.[16] This leads him to support the "core" features of the rule of law, including government acting within its legal authority.[17] Noting that this is not incompatible with wide discretionary powers on the part of the government, Allan then goes on to accept Raz's complaint, below, that too wide a definition is to expound a complete social philosophy. He instead chooses a conception that is not so wide, whilst being not as limited as Raz's.[18]

Opposition to substantive content

In particular,

independence of the judiciary; the principles of natural justice (unbiased judiciary); judicial review of implementation; accessible courts; and no perversion of the law by policing discretion.[22] However, he considers the list incomplete.[23]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 95.
  2. ^ a b Dicey (1914). Part 2, chapter 4.
  3. ^ "Magna Carta an introduction" The British Library. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
  4. ^
    Wade, Sir William (1996). "Sovereignty - Evolution or Revolution?". Law Quarterly Review
    . 112: 574.
  5. ^ R. Rait, 'Parliaments of Scotland' (1928)
  6. ^ Brown and Tanner, passim; R. Tanner, The Late Medieval Scottish Parliament, passim; K. Brown and A. Mann, History of the Scottish Parliament, ii, passim
  7. ^ Bradley, Ewing (2011). pp. 95–96.
  8. ^ [1765] EWHC KB J98
  9. ^ a b Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 96.
  10. ^ Raz (1977). pp. 196–197.
  11. ^ Bradley, Ewing (2011). pp. 96–97.
  12. ^ Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 97.
  13. ^ Bradley, Ewing (2011). pp. 97–98.
  14. ^ a b c Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 98.
  15. ^ Allan (1985). pp. 111–112.
  16. ^ Allan (1985). pp. 112–113.
  17. ^ Allan (1985). p. 113.
  18. ^ Allan (1985). pp. 113–114.
  19. ^ Raz (1997). p. 195.
  20. ^ a b Raz (1997). p. 198.
  21. ^ Taken from The Road to Serfdom (1945): quoted in Raz (1977) p. 195.
  22. ^ Raz (1977). pp. 198–201.
  23. ^ Raz (1977). p. 202.

External links
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rule_of_law_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1161895443"