Rule of law in the United Kingdom

Last updated

The rule of law is one of the longest established common law fundamental principles of the governance of the United Kingdom, dating to Magna Carta of 1215, particularly jurisprudence following its late 13th century re-drafting. At a minimum, it subjects an otherwise absolute monarch or executive and all free people within its jurisdictions (i.e. England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), to legal doctrines known as the general principles of law. It has evolved to work alongside the equal application of the law to all free people, and within the framework of the constitutional monarchy to support 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.

Contents

Among recognised academics in this field are Albert Dicey, Joseph Raz, 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.

History

The rule of law is emphasised through many separate ideas. Among them are that law and order in contrast to anarchy, the running of government in line with the law, and normative discussion about the rights of the state as compared to the individual. [1] 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 Magna Carta and its byproduct, the first representative Parliament of England, which denied for the first time from the King the completely unfettered powers formerly exercised by the most powerful 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 habeas corpus was widely achieved in the 17th century. However, with slavery primarily in the colonies continuing, it was not until the successes of abolitionism in the United Kingdom, the 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 Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 imposed constraints on the monarch and it fell to Parliament under the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty to impose its own constitutional conventions involving the people, the monarch (or Secretaries of State in cabinet and 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 Prime Minister and cabinet system from the mid 18th century, following on from the Bill of Rights 1689 in the Glorious Revolution, the highest courts laid down jurisprudence entrenching the growing doctrines of the Enrolled bill rule and Parliamentary sovereignty. In return, Parliament has acquiesced in the senior courts' ability to declare unlawful new legislation based on older Treaty-based legislation, for instance the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in the Factortame I and IV decisions; executive action claims in judicial review are now often based on the Human Rights Act 1998 (and in turn 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]

Jurisprudence

Substantive and formal debate

Substantive versions of the concept of the rule of law, as they apply to the United Kingdom, ask 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 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, or break new legislative ground. [7]

Trevor Allan sees the rule of law as, primarily, a vehicle for the protection of rights against "irresponsible legislative encroachment" in the face of a government with a large authority, backed by a significant majority in the House of Commons. [8] The rule of law is contrasted with rule by men and the arbitrary power one man or government official might exercise over the other. [9] Allan thus supports the idea that there are core features of the rule of law, including government acting within its legal authority. [10] Noting that this is not incompatible with wide discretionary powers on the part of the government, Allan accepts that too wide a definition of the rule of law is to expound a complete social philosophy. [11]

On the other hand, Joseph Raz has argued that the rule of law should be limited to formal values, which include prospective, open and clear laws; relatively stable laws; laws based on stable, open and open and clear rules; the 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, inter alia. [12] [13] He suggests that the rule of law has become a by-word for general political ideals, separate from its actual meaning. [14] Instead, he identifies principles of "open and relatively stable" lawmaking, and laws that the public can live their lives by. This concept is a merely formal one, he identifies, because this could be achieved through dictatorship, democracy, or any other means. [15] Raz drew on similar ideas expressed by Friedrich Hayek, including "stripped of all technicalities, [the rule of law] means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand – rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge." [16]

Raz identifies government following the law as a tautology: if the will of those inside the government were expressed outside their legal constraints, they would no longer be acting as the government. He therefore characterises this legal form argument as one of mere obedience to the law — ensuring those in government follow the laws as those outside it should. He rejects that as the sole conception of the rule of law. [17]

Purpose

Law and order requires the prevention of crime as well as the contribution of authorities. 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 a dictatorial framework. [1] Whether the rule of law can truly exist without democracy is debated. 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. At the same time, it has been regarded that for democracy to thrive, the rule of law must be observed. [18]

Case law

Public authorities must act within the law assigned to them. Any actions taken outside the law are ultra vires and cannot be sanctioned by the courts. Entick v Carrington was a leading case in terms of the English law where the courts reviewed the powers of government to trespass on private property, with the famous dictum of Camden LJ: "If this is law it would be found in our books, but no such law ever existed in this country". [19] [20] 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]

In the 2008 case of 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, which held that 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, such as contempt of court. [20] Government departments are directly liable for damage caused by their acts. However, the sovereign retains immunity from prosecution. [21] In M v Home Office, the Home Secretary was found to be liable for contempt of court. [22]

The substantive interpretation of the rule of law is controversial in the United Kingdom. The judiciary has found difficulty in deciding what the specific constitutional or fundamental rights the rule of law should enforce. In A v Home Secretary , the courts ruled that the right not to be held indefinitely without trial was in line with the European Convention. However, it is questionable to what extent such a principle can continue to be deemed appropriate if circumstances changed. [12] In R (Corner House Research) , the defendant, a prosecutorial body, was deemed to allow national security considerations to take precedence over a thorough investigation into alleged bribery in certain arms deals, an apparent departure from the principle of completely equal application of the law, which has been perceived as a breach of the modern-day rule of law. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitutional law</span> An area of law that deals with interpretation and implementation of the Constitution

Constitutional law is a body of law which defines the role, powers, and structure of different entities within a state, namely, the executive, the parliament or legislature, and the judiciary; as well as the basic rights of citizens and, in federal countries such as the United States and Canada, the relationship between the central government and state, provincial, or territorial governments.

The separation of powers principle functionally differentiates several types of state power and requires these operations of government to be conceptually and institutionally distinguishable and articulated, thereby maintaining the integrity of each. To put this model into practice, government is divided into structurally independent branches to perform various functions. When each function is allocated strictly to one branch, a government is described as having a high degree of separation; whereas, when one person or branch plays a significant part in the exercise of more than one function, this represents a fusion of powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of the United Kingdom</span>

The United Kingdom has three distinctly different legal systems, each of which derives from a particular geographical area for a variety of historical reasons: English law, Scots law, Northern Ireland law, and, since 2007, calls for a fourth type, that of purely Welsh law as a result of Welsh devolution, with further calls for a Welsh justice system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">King-in-Parliament</span> Legal concept in the Westminster system

In the Westminster system used in many Commonwealth realms, the King-in-Parliament is a constitutional law concept that refers to the components of parliament – the sovereign and the legislative houses – acting together to enact legislation.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore. A written constitution, the text which took effect on 9 August 1965 is derived from the Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963, provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia made applicable to Singapore by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965, and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act itself. The text of the Constitution is one of the legally binding sources of constitutional law in Singapore, the others being judicial interpretations of the Constitution, and certain other statutes. Non-binding sources are influences on constitutional law such as soft law, constitutional conventions, and public international law.

<i>Sue v Hill</i> Australian High Court case

Sue v Hill was an Australian court case decided in the High Court of Australia on 23 June 1999. It concerned a dispute over the apparent return of a candidate, Heather Hill, to the Australian Senate in the 1998 federal election. The result was challenged on the basis that Hill was a dual citizen of the United Kingdom and Australia, and that section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia.

<i>Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service</i> United Kingdom constitutional law

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service[1984] UKHL 9, or the GCHQ case, is a United Kingdom constitutional law and UK labour law case that held the royal prerogative was subject to judicial review.

<i>R (Jackson) v Attorney General</i> UK House of Lords case

R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 is a House of Lords case noted for containing obiter comments by the judiciary acting in their official capacity suggesting that there may be limits to parliamentary sovereignty, the orthodox position being that it is unlimited in the United Kingdom.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Primacy of European Union law</span> Legal principle

The primacy of European Union law is a legal principle of rule according to higher law establishing precedence of European Union law over conflicting national laws of EU member states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom constitutional law</span> Law that constitutes the body politic of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom constitutional law concerns the governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With the oldest continuous political system on Earth, the British constitution is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over centuries from common law statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus. In 1215, Magna Carta required the King to call "common counsel" or Parliament, hold courts in a fixed place, guarantee fair trials, guarantee free movement of people, free the church from the state, and it enshrined the rights of "common" people to use the land. After the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution 1688, Parliament won supremacy over the monarch, the church and the courts, and the Bill of Rights 1689 recorded that the "election of members of Parliament ought to be free". The Act of Union 1707 unified England, Wales and Scotland, while Ireland was joined in 1800, but the Republic of Ireland formally separated between 1916 and 1921 through bitter armed conflict. By the Representation of the People Act 1928, almost every adult man and woman was finally entitled to vote for Parliament. The UK was a founding member of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Council of Europe, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Australia</span> Supreme law of Australia

The Constitution of Australia is the fundamental law that governs the political structure of Australia. It is a written constitution, that establishes the country as a federation under a constitutional monarchy governed with a parliamentary system. Its eight chapters sets down the structure and powers of the three constituent parts of the federal level of government: the Parliament, the Executive Government and the Judicature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review</span> Ability of courts to review actions by executive and legislatures

Judicial review is a process under which a government's executive, legislative, or administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary. In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom</span> Privileges and immunities of the British monarch

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity attached to the British monarch, recognised in the United Kingdom. The monarch is regarded internally as the absolute authority, or "sole prerogative", and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United Kingdom</span> Uncodified constitution of the UK

The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rule of law</span> Political situation in which everyone is subject to the law

The rule of law is a political and legal ideal that all people and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers, government officials, and judges. It is sometimes stated simply as "no one is above the law" or "all are equal above the law". According to Encyclopædia Britannica, it is defined as "the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power."

Constitutionalism is "a compound of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom</span> Constitutional principle of the United Kingdom

Parliamentary sovereignty is an ancient concept central to the functioning of the constitution of the United Kingdom but which is also not fully defined and has long been debated. Since the subordination of the monarchy under parliament, and the increasingly democratic methods of parliamentary government, there have been the questions of whether parliament holds a supreme ability to legislate and whether or not it should.

The concept of the separation of powers has been applied to the United Kingdom and the nature of its executive, judicial and legislative functions. Historically, the apparent merger of the executive and the legislature, with a powerful Prime Minister drawn from the largest party in parliament and usually with a safe majority, led theorists to contend that the separation of powers is not applicable to the United Kingdom. However, in recent years it does seem to have been adopted as a necessary part of the UK constitution.

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a provision of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 that requires courts to interpret both primary and subordinate legislation so that their provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which are also part of the Human Rights Act 1998. This interpretation goes far beyond normal statutory interpretation, and includes past and future legislation, therefore preventing the Human Rights Act from being impliedly repealed by subsequent contradictory legislation.

Parliamentary sovereignty, also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy, is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. It also holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and so it is not bound by written law or by precedent. Changes to the constitution typically require a supermajority, often two thirds of votes instead of one half.

References

  1. 1 2 Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 95.
  2. 1 2 Dicey (1914). Part 2, chapter 4.
  3. ↑ "Magna Carta an introduction" The British Library. Retrieved 4 February 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 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. 97–98.
  8. ↑ Allan (1985). pp. 111–112.
  9. ↑ Allan (1985). pp. 112–113.
  10. ↑ Allan (1985). p. 113.
  11. ↑ Allan (1985). pp. 113–114.
  12. 1 2 3 Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 98.
  13. ↑ Raz (1977). pp. 198–201.
  14. ↑ Raz (1997). p. 195.
  15. ↑ Raz (1997). p. 198.
  16. ↑ Taken from The Road to Serfdom (1945): quoted in Raz (1977) p. 195.
  17. ↑ Raz (1977). pp. 196–197.
  18. ↑ Bradley, Ewing (2011). pp. 95–96.
  19. ↑ [1765] EWHC KB J98
  20. 1 2 Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 96.
  21. ↑ Bradley, Ewing (2011). pp. 96–97.
  22. ↑ Bradley, Ewing (2011). p. 97.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.