UK Judiciary Essays

Threats to Civil Liberties

Threat	Evaluation
EXCESSIVE POWERS OF PARLIAMENT – parliament has the ability to pass legislation that can potentially act against the liberties of citizens. Parliamentary sovereignty has allowed for an uncontained short term government.	Judicial Review was specifically put in place because of this. Public bodies can be prevented from acting against liberties and judges can rule parliamentary laws “incompatible” which tends to spark a debate for policy change.
WEAKNESS OF HR ACT – not entrenched, increasingly a threat as the Conservative aim to remove the Human Rights act for a British Bill of Rights. Also open to manipulation by parliament.	Supreme Court has used the HRA to strengthen the protection of citizens’ rights. Prior to this there were no positive rights. Policy has done a great deal to protect minorities.
NATIONAL SECURITY – Cameron said there cannot be 100% security and 100% privacy. The right to privacy is limited in favour for protection of national security. NSA scandal showed this.	Rights are protected by the Human Rights Act, the courts especially the ECJ whom have had a great deal of influence on UK law that UK judges have been willing to interpret.
LEGISLATION – linking to parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can change laws which tend to limit citizens. this was evident from the limiting of trade union power, legal aid cuts, enhancing police powers after 9/11 and 7/7 etc.	As stated before, the courts have the ability to enforce public bodies to change policies.

Conflicts between executive and judiciary

CONFLICTS	EVALUTATION
SENTENCING – judges have the rule of dispensing justice at their own will but parliamentary sovereignty can often put pressure or force a court sentencing to go a certain way. Like Parliament changing the court’s interpretation of life in prison to make the Rigby killers get life. This conflicts with the idea of judicial independence.	The courts still have this power vested within. Most court decisions are made independently with the few exceptions of those that conflict with political interests. Mini conclusion – as judges become more politically involved it is evident that the executives and the courts will come into conflicts over sentencing.
JUDICIAL REVIEW – giving judges the ability to legislate from the bench. Judges have increasingly reshaped the political system since their independence was established. Parliament was against this and even debated to limit it. Legal aid cuts, Belmarsh case etc.	Judges are limited as they cannot initiate judicial review or enforce it on parliament. This ensures that the branches cannot directly limit another influence and conflict with another’s role. Mini conclusion – judicial review resulted in the changed within local government which parliament should control.
HR ACT & ECHR – the executive often criticises the judge’s willingness to accept laws from the ECHR and interpret the human rights act which has granted protection to criminals. Too much outsider influences that conflict with the agenda of parliament.	Human rights act is relatively weak because of its lack of entrenchment. The judges therefore have the ability to enforce the act as to where it is limited by the constitution which still allows for an effective parliament. Mini conclusion – domestic issues and parliamentary policies have been criticised by the judiciary against the act showing conflict.
SEPARATION OF POWERS – judges extend their powers onto politics, politicians extend their agenda onto the rule of law. These are separate institutions with conflicting goals over similar area of interests. Too much fusion has created too much problems.	Parliament has greater authority over the courts, being elected and accountable. There is therefore less practical conflicts. Mini conclusion – judicial independence has allowed for a powerful and uncontained court that is willing and able to conflict with the executive.
INTERPRETATION – having an uncodified constitution makes it very unclear as to how the constitution should be interpreted. Judges are arguably the protectors of the constitution but parliament is sovereign so…	This was one of the strengths of the HR Act. Drawing the line and avoiding potential conflicts.

To what extent is the Human Rights Act controversial?

Arguments For	Evaluation
Enhancing Judicial Power – judges have the ability to amend and create laws that parliament have the mandate to do. Judges are thought to be “legislating on the bench.” Forcing 80% of councils to look over their cuts in elderly care.	Parliament is still sovereign. The human rights act has only provided a great set of rights to rule by. Judicial power has been limited through legal aid cuts.
Political Influence – the human rights act has steamed greater than the protection of rights, it has shaped immigration, terrorist and asylum laws. Hist V. UK also shows the rights enforcing the right for prisoners to vote which is highly controversial and opposed by the government.	Parliament has opted into specific sections of the convention. The courts can then opt out of certain sections. Parliamentary sovereignty also demonstrates that some parts of the law can simply be ignored; prisoners still do not have their voting rights.
Outsider influence – public bodies are constraint by the beliefs of outsider influences on the UK’s constitution. The UK “should have its own set of rights” and “British Courts should be able to decide how the British legal system is operated” as stated by Prime Minister Cameron.	Parliament remains the supreme policy making body. The potential of the UK opting out of the convention shows how powerful parliament is over it.
Misinterpretation – the convention is believed to be used further than protecting rights but protecting criminals. The Belmarsh case and Abu Qatada whom all threatened national security but parliament was constrained by the human rights act.	The Belmarsh case which resulted in a change in law that allowed Parliament to detain without a trial shows how powerful parliament is over the convention with regards to criminals. Theresa Mae is also known for enforcing a great deal of pressure on the courts.
Not entrenched – the idea of safeguarded rights is a myth. Parliament can and does erode the convention and the possibility of the UK opting out of the convention shows how weak the human rights act is.	The Human rights can have protected rights for a long time now.