This essay looks to discuss Parliamentary sovereignty as a constitutional relic and will argue that it has not been rendered obsolete by the supremacy of European law. This will be done by examining the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It will further argue that although the United Kingdom’s statutory recognition of the Human Rights Act 1998, in response to the convention of HR, may be seen to limit the supremacy of Parliament, it will prove that Parliament still reigns supreme. It will highlight that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is a relevant and crucial doctrine within the United Kingdom’s constitution as it is essential for parliament to enact statutory law. This essay, taking all the above arguments into consideration, will conclude that Parliamentary sovereignty is very much alive within the UK constitution.
Sovereignty is used to describe the idea of the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit, Parliamentary sovereignty is part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom. It dictates that Parliament can make or unmake any laws as it is the ultimate legal authority in the UK. Parliament is still sovereign as it can make law on any matter and it has legislative supremacy. However parliamentary sovereignty can be questioned due to the membership of the European Union and the Human Rights Act. Parliament can make laws on any matter due to Dicey in ‘Law of the Constitution (1885).’ He said that ‘in theory Parliament has total power.
Persuasive precedent is a decision of a lower court which may influence the higher court, where the legal facts are similar or slightly different. It may also be made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, another jurisdiction or things said obiter. The Supreme Court binds all lower courts and generally binds itself due to London Tramways Co v London County Council 1898. The Practice Statement 1966 says that following precedent is a good thing as it enables us to know exactly what the law is and we can behave accordingly. Despite this, it is stated that following precedent too rigidly may cause an injustice.
This clearly shows an effective protection of liberty by judges. Furthermore, a vital protection of liberties can be exercised via judicial review. Judicial review is a process that is conducted in the Supreme Court that hears an appeal over lawfulness of a case. It is not focused on the rights and wrongs of a case, this would be a case for appeal courts following the above methods, judicial review is simply an examination of the lawfulness of a case. For example, in the case of Home Secretary v. AP 2010 an appeal allowing the government to detain AP on a control order
How can he help it?" Similarly, Lord Reid in a speech entitled "The judge as lawmaker", said "We do not believe in fairy tales any more, so we must accept the fact that for better or worse judges do make law." There can be no doubt that Lord Radcliffe and Lord Reid were right, and that judges do make law and even change the law from time to time. The extent of this creativity is displayed in a variety of ways. Judges inevitably make law in a sense whenever they interpret a statute or a piece of delegated legislation.
c) The courts tend to look at the preamble and the long heading of the Act (usually found in Private and older Public Acts). Titles, annotations and punctuation may be considered also, however it is only to help make clear the meaning of vague words. RULES USED IN INTERPRETATION:- Judges can find assistance for the interpretation of law under a number of rules, following are the rules listed. 1. Literal Rule - The Literal Rule in a stature are clear and unambiguous, and it must be given its exact or ordinary meaning when used in court, regardless of the outcome.
Evaluate the impact of European law on English law This essay will outline and discuss the impact of the European Union has over the English law and the decisions made. Parliamentary Sovereignty is what makes parliament the high supreme authority regarding legal issues in the UK and can also create or take away any given law. Parliamentary sovereignty is ultimately the most vital part of the UK constitution; the UK constitution is referred to as being partly written down due to it not really existing in a single test. Parliament over the years have passed laws to limit the application of Parliamentary Sovereignty, these laws include: The human rights act 1998 The UK’s entry to the European Union in 1972 The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish parliament and welsh assembly The decision to establish the supreme court in 2009, which ultimately put an end to the House of Lords being the final court of appeal. Parliament can still undermine any of the laws which implement these changes, therefore these developments do not fully undermine parliamentary sovereignty.
Putting all of this together and using the example of international law of sea, Japan, Korea, and China, which would be the good subject and who would the judge be? Each country would say they are just trying to protect their own property and the law so I think all of these three countries can be good subjects. At this point, a sensitive judge would become important. The judge needs to be sensitive about the topic because it has many historic backgrounds about who is actually claiming the truth about the part that is being fought
The Human Rights may be used by every person who resides in England or Wales regardless of whether or not they are a British Citizen or a foreign national. It can even be used by companies or organisations. The Human Rights that are contained within this law are based on the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act ‘gives further effect’ to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention. What this actually means is that it does two things: (1) Judges must read and give effect to legislation (other laws) in a way which is compatible with the Convention Rights and (2) it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right.
Bill of Rights I am going to discuss the courts going through the motions in the Criminal Justice-due process. The US. Supreme Court has through the due process clause of the 14 Amendment, consist of the protections and the prohibitions contained in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court also requires that the state and local government obeys those portions of the Bill of Rights that have been incorporated through noble law-makers. Procedural due process is simply a requirement that the substance of any law be applied to a person with fair procedures by any tribunal that is hearing a case.