Nowadays, Judicial Review has been expanded in such extent that it can be argued that any kind of power, statutory or prerogative, will be reviewable. English courts are responsible to handle the manner of the exercise of a public power, in relation to its scope and its substance. In order to achieve this, the Courts will rely on legislative intention an area with a lot of academic debate, those in favour of the ultra vires theory and those of the common law theory. Whether this legislative intention is a convincing constitutional justification will be based on the grounds of judicial review which these grounds give the source of power to the judicial review powers of the Courts. However, there are areas that the Courts should or cannot engage, as they are limited firstly by their constitutional role and secondly by their institutional capacity.
The courts are responsible to ensure that decisions are taken by the standards of procedural fairness. Furthermore, they should ensure that a public authority acts within the framework, of the relevant power or duty. In the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza as Lord Nichols said: “Parliament has to hold a fair balance between the competing interests of tenants and landlords, taking into account broad issues of social and economic policy”. Furthermore, the Courts are bind by the Human Rights Act 1998 as enacted by the European Convention of Human Rights, to ensure that no public authority may interfere with these rights and even Parliament is expected to consider them. According to Lord Diplock in relation to government and generally the executive: “They are accountable to Parliament for what they do so far as regards efficiency and policy and of that Parliament is the only judge; th...
... middle of paper ...
...interpretation of statutes cannot conflict with the legislative intent. However in one distinct case, the court could not interpret s.3 of the Act as it would be a violation of the legislative intent.
In conclusion, English courts rely on legislative intent as a convincing constitutional justification of their judicial review powers. Ultra vires is still an important doctrine as it was practical stated in two important cases; R v. Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson. Furthermore, the Courts also rely on the grounds of review as well as the obligations from the Human Rights Act 1998. According to Lord Woolf “our parliamentary democracy is based on the rule of law. The Courts derive their authority from the rule of law and cannot act in a manner which involves its repudiation.”
The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law, not to make it. In some cases an approach that gives slightly more emphasis to the text may be seen to be more in line with the judiciary’s constitutional position. The law is written in the words of the statutes, and Parliament has an obligation to express law correctly. The role of the court courts is not to ensure that Parliament hits the target every time, especially when the legislation does not clearly display those targets.
...n and scrutiny to judicial review. It can be inferred that if in the present, judicial review was seen as unconstitutional, then one might view Gibson’s oppositions as one views Marbury v. Madison now.
...und statutes unconstitutional, concluding: The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine (Treanor).” The result and impact of this case is that it established Judicial Review as a Court power, which states that the Supreme Court or Judiciary branch has the right to review executive and legislative actions and see if they are constitutional. Judicial review is an “example of checks and balances in Americas’ modern governmental system” ("Judicial Review."). Because of the Marbury v. Madison case, all cases submitted into the Courts are subjected to judicial review to check constitutionality.
The Human Rights Act of 1998 was co-founded upon the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. Developed following the ending of the Second World War, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was constructed to further the idealistic principles and endeavours of equality among all human beings, as well as a devout declaration of preventing the reoccurrence of the holocaust and massacres which have occurred as a casus belli . ECHR comprises civil privileges and liberties fundamental to all human beings irrespective of race, gender, age, sexual orientation exclusive of discrimination. The UK government have promptly endorsed the ECHR, recognising the need of ...
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,
Herring J., ‘The Human Rights Act and the welfare principle in family law – conflicting or complementary?’ [1999] C.F.L.Q.11 (3), 223-235
In Robert Lowry Clinton’s book Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, the author describes the controversial ideal of judicial review, which became a major power delegated to the Supreme Court following the case Marbury v. Madison. Clinton does this by tracing the origins of judicial review that preceded the court case, as well as describing the institution through the court case itself and its future in the American justice system. Despite the court’s now famous history, Clinton claims in his book an agreed upon notion of judicial review of constitutional matters has existed before, during and after the Marbury decision.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
Lord Hope notably proposed that ‘the rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimately controlling factor on which our constitution is based’ . This was concurred by Lady Baroness Hale who stated that ‘the courts will treat with particular suspicion any attempt to subvert the rule of law’ although she acknowledged, ‘the constraints upon what Parliament can do are political and diplomatic rather than constitution.’
Late amendments have also become a growing problem in the United Kingdom. This is particularly evident in matters concerned with Human Rights. Late submission of amendments does not allow enough time for the committees to discuss the matters and accept or reject such amendments which as a result leads to inefficiency to perform their job.
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
The rule of law is thought to be one of the most fundamental doctrines of the constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom. The distinctive UK‘s constitution has influences previously on the judicial system too. Government and the legal systems in history have both been involved in rules and discretion and most of all the elimination of all discretionary power in which both of these are impossible and unwanted. The rule of law means in one sense, government by the law but obviously government is by the people as well as by the law. As soon as the governing people are added in, the government can’t then be by law on there own. Although the situation is not undoubtedly as the making of particular laws can be guided by open and relatively stable general laws that have been made. For the Rule of Law to have meaning in a democratic society, it has to mean that those who run it have comply with it for it to work; there must be no room for an “ends justifies the means”