The Constitutional Significance of the Decision of the House of Lords
‘This is the most important case to come before the House since I have
been a member.’[1]
Constitutional lawyers have called the judges’ verdict on the terror
laws one of the most important decisions from Britain’s highest court
in 50 years. The 240-paragraph judgment, handed down on 16 December
2004 outlines the opinions of an unprecedented panel of nine law
lords, instead of the usual five, because of its constitutional
significance. The ratio of the case alone was of extreme importance,
concerning the issue over the disproportionate and discriminatory
locking up of foreign suspected terrorists without trial. It confirms
how the House of Lord’s ensures the rule of law prevails when
fundamental rights are questioned. The variation on the public law
theme of the relationships between the court, the executive and
Parliament was also highlighted in this decision; particularly the
overlapping of the bodies and the conflict between the House of Lords
and the Executive. Were the courts in fact entitled to answer the
hyper-political question of whether there is an ‘emergency,’
threatening the life of the nation? To assess the significance over
these issues, one must first understand the facts and background for
the case.
The detention by the UK Government of the nine-suspected terrorists
was made under powers given in the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security
Act 2001. The Act, passed in the wake of the September 11 bombings by
Al-Qa’eda, allows the Secretary of State to order indefinite detention
without charge on suspicion of terrorism. The Detainees are not given
...
... middle of paper ...
...----------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Baroness Hale of Richmond, Judgements- A(FC) and others (FC)
(Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department(Respondent)-www.publications.parliament.uk-
par 219.
[2] Lord Hoffmann, op cit- par 86.
[3] Lord Hoffmann, op cit- par 89
[4] Lord Scott, op-cit- par 155
[5] Dickson B, Law Versus Terrorism: Can law Win? 2005- European Human
Rights Law Review
[6] Lord Hope, Judgements- A(FC) and others (FC) (Appellants) v.
Secretary of State for the Home Department(Respondent)-www.publications.parliament.uk-
par 138
[7] Lady Hale- op-cit- par 238
[8] Lord Walker-op-cit- par 193
[9] Lord Hope- op-cit- par 107
[10] Lord Bingham- op-cit- par 42
[11] Lord Scott- op-cit- par 145
[12] Lord Hoffman- op-cit- par 97
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s there were many issues that involved racial segregation with many different communities. A lot of people did not took a stand for these issues until they were addressed by other racial groups. Mendez vs Westminster and Brown vs The Board of Education, were related cases that had to take a stand to make a change. These two cases helped many people with different races to come together and be able to go to school even if a person was different than the rest.
The history between the British Empire and its dominions always was significantly distinguished through the strong ties which people connected to the mother-country of Britain. However, as always in history changes were about to happen as each dominion urged to become more and more independent. The end of this process is marked by the Statute of Westminster passed in 1931 which granted the former dominions full legal freedom and established legislative equality between the now self-governing dominions of the British Empire. Therefore, the Statute of Westminster is one of the most remarkable acts in Canadian history as it set the road to the development of Canada in which we live today.
time in detention camps. How far the principle of this case would be extended before plausible reasons would play out, I do not know." (pg. 1389).
The Strengths of the U.K. Constitution Britain’s need for a codified constitution, as a unitary state, is different. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is also a political union, but based on the sovereignty of the national Parliament. The UK now has a Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly able to pass their own domestic legislation and a National Assembly for Wales which can make secondary legislation. But all these were created by and are subordinate to the Westminster Parliament, as are all 468 county, borough, district and unitary councils. Parliamentary sovereignty also entails the right to make or unmake any law whatever.
The Effectiveness of the House of Commons as a Check on the Executive What is meant by the effectiveness of the commons check on the executive is basically, how able is the house of commons to prevent the Government (executive) from getting its own way or forcing its will upon the people of Britain. In theory the commons level of effectiveness is constant as each Member of Parliament has an opinion on every bill or motion that is put forward that is based on conscience. This is not practicable, however, as the party system and the party whips change this. The whips tell MPs which way to vote and can impose sanctions upon those MPs who rebel against the government.
What is the Townshend Act? (1764) The Townshend act is an act that made the Colonists pay taxes for many imported goods such as glass, lead, and other crucial materials that the colonists of America needed. The taxes were made in order to help pay for the funding of British soldiers sailing from their homeland to America in order to make sure that Colonial America was behaving. The leader that had made this frowned upon act was called Charles Townshend and was one of the few leaders in Parliament to combat the American colonies.
Britain in the nineteenth century was experiencing a growth, a movement, and a change. Along with change came prosperity, wealth, and support. However, along with the good came the negative. The negative was the people who were traditional. They did not want change because they liked their world the way it was. One of these people was Thomas Carlyle. He was tremendously pessimistic towards the change of the nineteenth century and he wrote an essay titled The "Mechanical Age" explaining why. His former friend, a supporter of change, John Stuart Mill also wrote a paper. Mill's paper was aptly called The Spirit of the Age, as he was exceptionally welcome to the idea of a revolution. These once former friends have incredibly different and strong points of view; they give their opinions of what the world should be like.
overrule UK laws but here we see that it does. So we can say that
Your Honors, we bring to you today a grotesque case of an incident on the high seas. You have read the facts, four men: Mr. Brooks, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Parker were stranded on an open boat. The first three were able-bodied seamen and the last, Mr. Parker, was a boy not yet eighteen.
... idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty: The Controlling Factor of Legality in the British Constitution’ (2008) OJLS 709.
Acts of Parliament as Public Law Acts of parliament are considered to be the highest form of law in England. The reason for this is constitutional. Under England's unwritten constitution, parliament is seen as sovereign. As a result, its enacted will, in the form of Acts of parliament, cannot be challenged in the courts. However, in practice there are legal, political and moral limitations on this sovereignty, which will be discussed in some detail in the following pages.
The House of Lords decision in the Daly underpinned one of Lord Bingham’s eight sub rules which refers to the law providing adequate protection for fundamental human rights. It was held the instruction issued by the Secretary of State violated prisoners right to a legal adviser under the seal of legal professional privilege. By holding the Secretary of State had no right to issue such an instruction, the House of Lords gave due regard to the Lord Bingham’s rule of law. A similar notion was present, in Wheeler where it said the club had a basic “constitutional right … to freedom of the person and freedom of speech” which had been interfered with by the council’s decision to ban use of the
through fear of god and so now we can abolish them as this fear is no
Long-term detention without a trial remained an issue. The Security Offences (Special Measures) 2012 Act (SOSMA) did replace the notorious Internal Security Act (ISA) on 31 July 2012 and reduced detention without charge from 60 (extendable to two years) to no more than 28 days, while requiring a suspect to be charged in court or released thereafter . Despite the positive advancement – according to the Bill, detention is applicable only for the purpose of active police investigations, and imm...
and the second is a free vote, this is when MPs are allowed to make up