4. The Rule of Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 75-113
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Reforms ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter explains the meaning and significance of the rule of law, briefly tracing the history of the rule of law and considering the main similarities and differences between various theories of the rule of law. It then assesses the impact of recent legal reforms on the operations of the rule of law in the UK. These reforms include the extension of detention without trial; the developing body of anti-terror legislation; and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which reinforces the importance of the independence of the judiciary and puts measures in place to attempt to strengthen the separation of the courts from the other arms of the state. Finally, the chapter discusses judicial interpretation of the rule of law through a selection of cases that have examined the legality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety of the actions of the executive or public bodies and whether their actions conform to the Human Rights Act 1998.

4. The Rule of Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Antisocial Behaviour ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Reforms ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Uk

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter explains the meaning and significance of the rule of law, briefly tracing the history of the rule of law and considering the main similarities and differences between various theories of the rule of law. It then assesses the impact of recent legal reforms on the operations of the rule of law in the UK. These reforms include the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders; the extension of detention without trial; and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which reinforces the importance of the independence of the judiciary and puts measures in place to attempt to strengthen the separation of the courts from the other arms of the state. Finally, the chapter discusses judicial interpretation of the rule of law through a selection of cases that have examined the legality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety of the actions of the executive or public bodies, and whether their actions conform to the Human Rights Act 1998.

17. Irrationality and Proportionality

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Rights Issue

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which discusses the circumstances for judicial review of a public authority’s decision on the grounds that it is irrational, first explains the history of irrationality and ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, to provide some background to the topic and to chart its development. It then considers cases in which the courts have discussed different versions of the irrationality test, discusses the difference between irrationality and proportionality, and examines the development of proportionality and its use in judicial review cases. The chapter distinguishes between proportionality and merits review, and discusses the use of judicial deference by the courts. Proportionality, and not irrationality, is the test used to determine whether a public authority has acted unlawfully when its decision is challenged by judicial review under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The irrationality test is used in non Human Rights Act judicial review cases but the courts have also used the proportionality test in cases involving common law rights. The chapter concludes by considering the discussion in the case law and the scholarship as to whether the irrationality test should be replaced by the test of proportionality across both types of case: traditional judicial review cases and those involving a human rights issue.

14. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The court is tasked with checking the legality of government action, which is mainly done through the process known as judicial review. Judicial review is a special form of court process that calls the executive to account for its exercise of power. This chapter discusses the history of judicial review; the grounds of review; the judicial review of delegated legislation; judicial review and the constitution; the difference between judicial review and appeal; the role of the courts and the Human Rights Act 1998; the judicial review procedure; and the extent to which judicial review can act as a check on executive power.

9. Parliamentary Supremacy and Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy ◽  
The Uk

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter examines the legislative supremacy of the UK Parliament and its impact on human rights protection (and vice versa), discussing the history of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in a UK context and the ECHR’s legal standing. It considers the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and its operation in the UK. The chapter addresses how the ECHR and the HRA 1998 affect parliamentary supremacy, and how the human rights context differs from the EU context as regards parliamentary supremacy. Finally, it analyses whether parliamentary supremacy provides adequate protection of human rights.

5. The Separation of Powers

2021 ◽  
pp. 114-144
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
History Of ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Uk ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Impact

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The separation of powers is a theory or a doctrine that describes how a state organizes the distribution of power and function between its different branches. It is often used as an umbrella term to denote the extent to which the three ‘powers’ in, or branches of, the state are fused or divided—that is, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial powers. This chapter begins by sketching the history of the separation of powers in the UK. It then discusses the purpose of the separation of powers; the similarities and differences between different theories of the separation of powers; the impact of recent constitutional reform on the operation of the separation of powers in the UK; how courts have interpreted the separation of powers; and the relevance of the separation of powers today, including in the context of the balance of power between the executive and Parliament as regards the UK’s decision to exit the European Union.

9. Parliamentary Supremacy and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 259-294
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy ◽  
The Uk

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter examines the legislative supremacy of the UK Parliament and its impact on human rights protection (and vice versa), discussing the history of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in a UK context and the ECHR’s legal standing. It considers the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and its operation in the UK. The chapter addresses how the ECHR and the HRA 1998 affect parliamentary supremacy and how the human rights context differs from the former EU context as regards parliamentary supremacy. Finally, it analyses whether parliamentary supremacy provides adequate protection of human rights.

17. Irrationality and Proportionality

2021 ◽  
pp. 565-600
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Rights Issue

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter, which discusses the circumstances for judicial review of a public authority’s decision on the grounds that it is irrational, first explains the history of irrationality and ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, to provide some background to the topic and to chart its development. It then considers cases in which the courts have discussed different versions of the irrationality test, discusses the difference between irrationality and proportionality, and examines the development of proportionality and its use in judicial review cases. The chapter distinguishes between proportionality and merits review and discusses the use of judicial deference by the courts. Proportionality, and not irrationality, is the test used to determine whether a public authority has acted unlawfully when its decision is challenged by judicial review under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The irrationality test is used in non-Human Rights Act judicial review cases, but the courts have also used the proportionality test in cases involving common law rights. The chapter concludes by considering the discussion in the case law and the scholarship as to whether the irrationality test should be replaced by the test of proportionality across both types of case: traditional judicial review cases and those involving a human rights issue.

14. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 433-478
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
The Difference

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The court is tasked with checking the legality of government action, which is mainly done through the process known as judicial review. Judicial review is a special form of court process that calls the executive to account for its exercise of power. This chapter discusses the history of judicial review; the grounds of review; the judicial review of delegated legislation; judicial review and the constitution; the difference between judicial review and appeal; the role of the courts and the Human Rights Act 1998; the judicial review procedure; and the extent to which judicial review can act as a check on executive power.

5. The Separation of Powers

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
History Of ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Distribution Of Power ◽  
The Uk ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. The separation of powers is a theory or a doctrine that describes how a state organizes the distribution of power and function between its different branches. It is often used as an umbrella term to denote the extent to which the three ‘powers’ in, or branches of, the state are fused or divided—that is, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial powers. This chapter begins by sketching the history of the separation of powers in the UK. It then discusses the purpose of the separation of powers; the similarities and differences between different theories of the separation of powers; the impact of recent constitutional reform on the operation of the separation of powers in the UK; how courts have interpreted the separation of powers; and the relevance of the separation of powers today including in the context of the balance of power between the executive and Parliament as regards the UK’s decision to exit the EU.

Australian Bills of Rights and the ‘New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism’

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Evans ◽  
Julia Watson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
High Court ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Key Features ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Court Of Australia ◽  
The Impact

This chapter examines the influence of the new Commonwealth model of human rights protection (exemplified by the UK Human Rights Act 1998) on the form of the two Australian statutory Bills of Rights, and then considers the impact of Australia's distinctive legal culture and constitutional structure on the operation of these instruments. In particular, it examines the impact of culture and structure in the decision of the High Court of Australia in R. v Momcilovic [2011] HCA 34; (2011) 280 A.L.R. As a result of that case, key features of the Australian Bills of Rights now diverge from the dominant UK approach, a divergence so striking that it may no longer be possible to identify the Australian Bills of Rights as exemplars of the new Commonwealth model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document