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.
Judicial review was established through judicial interpretation in court case Marbury v. Madison. The Supreme Court justices interpreted that the Constitution gives them to right to review laws for constitutionality. Another informal method is incorporation of traditions, precedent and practice. Although not enumerated in the Constitution, a traditional practice may be widely used because of widely acceptance. Political faction is one example of amending the Constitution informally.
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
In order for this checks and balances to be put in practice, the judicial branch must have some important role as surveillance. This applies to the fact that judicial review can stop the legislative branch from exceeding its power. Not only the legislative branch but also, the executive branch is under the judicial watch. The court can also claim unconstitutional to the executive acts that are judged oppressive. It is their job to declare void acts by other branches violating the Constitution.
If a judge is a loose constructionist they are more likely to interpret the constitution in a liberal fashion. However, if a judge is a strict constructionist it means they will interpret the constitution very strictly. They will derive and apply rules from
How effectively does the judiciary protect civil liberties in the UK? The UK judiciary has several methods at its disposal that provide an effective protection of civil liberties in the UK. However, in practice there are several shortcomings that make these protections weak in the face of Parliamentary pressure, which will be demonstrated in this essay. In terms of rights protections, perhaps the most important development in the protection of rights in the UK has been the installation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. This act effectively has provided a concrete document that outlines the rights of citizens.
It can be argued that the UK constitution is too flexible. The lack of clearly defined roles (separation of powers) means that theoretically an electoral dictatorship could occur. For example in 1997 Tony Blaire’s government passed a series of laws without any difficulty. Devolution, human rights act and freedom of information were all acts set by the priminister and his cabinet (the executive) which went relatively unchecked by the opposition (legislative). This demonstrates how a lack of separation of powers/checks and balances would only come about from and uncodified/flexible constitution.
Despite this, it is stated that following precedent too rigidly may cause an injustice. It is important that the law adapts with the times and judges in the Supreme Court may depart from a previous decision when 'right to do so'. However, the Practice Statement also recognises that it is important to be careful when departing from precedent as it may cause more injustice than if left alone. The first practical application of the Practice Statement was seen in Herrington v British Rail Board 1972 when the then House of Lords held that "any person bringing a dangerous animal on to their land must bear full responsibility"
Discuss the meaning of justice and consider whether justice is achieved in English Law (30 marks) There is an argument within the English Legal System as to the degree of convergence between law and Justice and its effects on the system. Law is a set of standardised procedures that regulate society and enforce basic rights. It was defined by John Austin as ‘the command of a sovereign enforced by a sanction’ and by Sir John Salmond as ‘the principles used in the administration of justice’. Laws are created by Parliament (the sovereign power). An example of a law created by Parliament is s.18 GBH under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 which carries a sanction of up to life imprisonment.
Judicial review is the right, or duty, the court has to review the constitutionality of legislation and/or actions taken by the executive branch. The court has the right to choose its cases, but these are brought before them not sought after by the court. What is the separation of powers? This is a form of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. They are in place so as to contain the power of any one branch attempting to overstep its authority and act in a tyrannical matter.