The Rule Of Law In Uk

The rule of law is one of the fundamental principles of UK' s unwritten or

uncodified constitution .The key idea of the rule of law is that the law should apply
equally to all ,rulers and ruled alike. This ,in the words of the 19-century
constitution expert ,A.V.Diecy ensures a government of law' and not a
government of men . The alternative to the rule of law is there for arbitrary
government. In this way, the rule of law establishes the relationship between
government and the people. AS John Lock put it, whenever law ends, tyranny
begins,

Furthermore, the rule of law is the principle that the law should rule in the sense
that it applies to all conduct and behavior and covers both private and public
officials . the most important sub principles of the rule of law are that no one is
above the law , that there is equality for all before the law, that the law is always
applied and that legal redress is available through the courts .

However , the rule of law is a complex principle , and it is best

explained as a collection of subprinciples .There has been
,moreover, significant debate about how far the law rules' the
UK . Harden and Lewis (1988) even describe the rule of law as the
noble lie' of the British constitution. As previously mentioned, the
rule of law, has been created to ensure that:

No One Is Above' The Law

This implies that every one is bound by the law. The law applies to ministers and
public officials as well as other members of society. This is supposed to ensure that
public officials use their power reasonably and do not exceed the limits placed on
its use. This aspect of the rule of law is upheld through administrative law and by
the practice of judicial review.

How ever, concerns have been expressed about the extent to which this principle
applies in the UK.
 1. Many of the powers of the prime minister and other ministers are based on
the Royal prerogative, which is not subject to judicial oversight.

2. As parliament is sovereign, it can make, unmake and amend any law it

whishes and son on, in that sense, it is above the law.

3. The principle of parliamentary privilege means the MPs and peers are not
subject to legal restrictions on what they can say in parliament

4. The Queen, as head of the legal system, is not properly subject to the law.

All these aspects can undermine No one is above' the law .moreover they are not
illegal actions and can not be prosecuted as an illegal action.

2) Equality Before The Law

The law is meant to treat all citizens alike; it is no respecter of persons .All people
should therefore have the same legal rights and have the same legal rights and have
the same access to the legal system. Consideration of Race, Colour, Creed,
Religion, Wealth, social status and official position must be irrelevant to how
people are treated by the court system.

However, concerns have been expressed about the extent to which this principle
applies in the UK:

1. Legal disputes may be prohibitively costly, for many, and only the wealthy
can afford to be represented by top lawyers.

2. Access to legal aid is not always easy and may exclude people from middle-
income groups

3. Judges may be biased against ,for instance .women, ethnic minorities and the
poor because they tend to come from narrow and privileged social and
educational background

4. The Law Is Always Applied.

Disputes must be resolved by the application of the law rather than by other means.
This means that there must be a certainty of punishment for breaches of law law
cannot apply in certain circumstances, but not in others. By the same token, there
should be punishment only for breaches of law- people should not be penalized
except through the due process of law.

However, concerns have been expressed about the extent to which this principle
applies in the UK;

1. Not all crimes are reported and therefore legally addressed ( this applies, for
instance, in the case of most rapes)

2. As polices resources are limited many crimes are not detected ( for
example , speeding offences)

3. Trial by the media means that people may be punished without legal
proceeding having taken, or, perhaps, despite being acquitted.

4. Legal Redress Is Available Through The Courts

If people's rights have been infringed (whether by other citizens, organizations or

the state,) they should be able to protect themselves through the law. For many
legal experts and a growing body of senior judges this implies that the law should
defend fundamental human rights .This is the aspect of the rule of law that
safeguards the individuals from the state.

However, concerns have been expressed about the extent to which this principle
applies in the UK:

1. There is no entrenched bill of right to protect fundamental human rights

2. The Human Rights Act can be set aside if parliament whishes.

3. Access to European Court of Human Rights is expensive and time-

consuming.

5) Judge's Independence

One crucial aspect of the role of the law is that judges are meant to be strictly
impartial and non-political .This is one of the basic differences between liberal
democratic countries and authoritarian regimes. In the later , the courts simply
become instrument of the state .In the Soviet Union ,for example ,judges applied
what was called social legality ,during the 1930s in particular. Show trial were
used to expose and punish opponents of the regime .By contrast, in liberal
democracies, the authority of the law is linked to the fact that it is supposed to be
non-political. This, in turn, is based on the assumption that the law is interpreted by
judges who are independent and impartial.

On the other hand, in UK, in view of the potential political significance of judicial
decision, the independence of judges is always a principle under pressure.
Traditionally, the main concern about the effectiveness of the judicial
independence focused on appointment process .While that was controlled by prime
minister and the Lord Chancellor, and so long as the Lord Chancellor's office fused
the roles of head of the judiciary and cabinet minister, judicial independence
always appear to be a constitutional fiction. This concern has substantially been
addressed though the establishment of the judicial appointment commission.

A second concern about judicial about judicial independence stems from a growing
willingness of ministers publicly criticize the courts .This has particularly applied
in the case of successive home secretaries .Examples of this includes :

1) In 2003, David Blunkett condemned the release of the nine afghan hijackers

2) In 2005, Charles Clarke criticized the release of terrorist suspects from

Belmaresh .

3) In 2007, John Reid attacked the decision not to deport the murders of the
London headmaster, Philip Lawrence, when hi is released.

In conclusion, the constitution, in any county, has a major impact on judicial

system. As a result, the distinctive UKs constitution has had influences on judicial
system also. The fact that UK's constitution grants a lot power to parliament is
obvious .In other words, to some extent, parliament can set aside any provisions of
the rule of law if it wishes ,For instance, nowadays, they are debates about the
invasion of Iraq which claim that the invasion was an illegal action and directly
against law. Since, the membership of UK in European Union the Judicial system
has also been influenced by European treaties such as changing the highest court of
appeal from House of lord to European court of justice.
Although, the vagueness, in the principles of the rule of the law exists by virtue of
parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law has also achieved, to some extent, its
goals.