The rule of law in uk

lawteacher.net /free-law-essays/english-legal-system/the-rule-of-law-in-uk.php
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:
1. 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.