• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess the constitutional significance of the decision of the House of Lords

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Assess the constitutional significance of the decision of the House of Lords in A(FC) and Others (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] '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. ...read more.

Middle

Quite simply to detain one group of suspected international terrorist, defined by nationality or immigration status, and not another, was a violation of Art 14 ECHR. The UK had not entered any derogation notice with regard to Art14. In a judgment that drew on various international legal materials and opinions, Lord Bingham rejected the Attorney-General's contention that the correct comparison was between non-UK nationals who represented a threat to the security of the UK, but who could be removed to their own or third countries, and, quite simply, suspected international terrorists who were UK nationals. Both he and Lord Hope suggested that the comparator advanced by the Attorney-General might be reasonable in an immigration context, but that the present case was a matter of security and not immigration. They rejected the Government's choice of immigration measures to deal with the Al-Qaeda threat to the UK especially as 'It is not disputed that a significant threat to national security comes from a significant number of British nationals.'6 Only Lord Walker dissented on this issue, arguing that the government had not been irrational. He stated that British citizens are in a fundamentally different position from non-nationals because they have a right of abode in the UK. Yet, perhaps the more trenchant summary of the illegality of the measure provided by Lady Hale describing how irrational the policy is outweighs Lord Walker's argument: No one has the right to be an international terrorist. ...read more.

Conclusion

It was the discriminatory nature of the Bill that perhaps most important as it was so irrational and produced the most emotive and persuasive arguments from the panel. There is no doubt that the Government have extremely difficult decisions to make regarding effective measures with the threat of terrorism, balanced with the provision of fundamental rights, given the current climate of fear. Yet what this decision illustrates is perhaps how reactive and draconian the executive are to achieve the objective of protecting the nation. The check on executive arbitration by the House of Lords and through judicial review is a useful instrument to show how politically vulnerable the Government can become. However, the very fact that the suspected foreign terrorists remained detained after this decision limits the effectiveness of the House of Lords and thus illustrates how it was constitutionally symbolic rather than significant. The readjustment of constitutional power may have been confirmed with this decision, with perhaps the House of Lords showing how they can function as a Supreme Court in not only name but also substance. Yet as the outcome shows, parliamentary sovereignty and executive domination perhaps outweigh the rule of law, even when the issue of liberty is so imperative in a democratic state. Lord Hoffman sums up the danger of reactive Executive legislation: The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sources of Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. "While we must grant that there is noabsolute separation of powers in this country, ...

    Members of the executive sit within the legislature as do some members of the judiciary and most intriguing of them all is the position of Lord Chancellor who sits in all three branches. The doctrine of the separation of powers supposes that these three bodies should have equal authority and

  2. To advise Reggie, it is necessary to look at the law of adverse possession. ...

    has been made for three months after service of notice of repayment, where some interest under the mortgage is in debts for two months after becoming due and when there has been a breach of some other provision in the mortgage other than the payment and interest.

  1. Outcome (3): Analyse the provisions relating to the police powers of arrest, search, seizure, ...

    The period of detention without charge should not normally exceed 24 hours, if it is then decided that there is insufficient evidence to charge someone they must then release them. Reviews of ones detention must be made on a regular basis the first time period usually been after 6 hours.

  2. Extradition of terrorists

    in deciding the status of the defendant has been reduced and rules surrounding foreign documents simplified. The requirement to provide prima facie evidence in some cases has been abolished and there is a simplified appeal process. For requirements of an 'extradition offence' we would be concentrating on s.64 where the

  1. How has the European Court of Human Rights contributed to the protection of children's ...

    United Kingdom68 interpreted Art. 8 creatively to guarantee procedural fairness, requiring child' empowerment to influence decisions directly. In Munro v. UK69, this entailed state obligation to provide solicitor for child in any serious application. This compulsory measure complies with Art. 12 UNCRC. In UK, however, one commentator states that unfortunately such Art.

  2. Environmental/Ethical Dilemma.

    Anyone or anything that comes into contact with this toxic waste may be unaware of the potential dangers it presents. 2. It is unethical behavior for the VP to even consider asking for advice on dumping toxic production wastes because the company has an obligation to conduct its daily business activities with the highest degree of integrity.

  1. Evaluate the extent to which the Human Right Act 1998 is consistent with the ...

    respects the British tradition of Parliamentary democracy and does not empower the judiciary to strike down an Act and to this extent it gives a weaker power to the Convention rights to that which it accords the Community law under section 2 of the European Community Acts 1972.

  2. It could be argued that the employment tribunal system is a breach of Article ...

    had come to the conclusion that her lack of promotion was due to gender disqualification so she put in a sex discrimination claim; she alleged that her telephone was "tapped" to obtain evidence about her claim. The ECHR held "tapping" an office telephone, was "prima facie" breach of Article 8,

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work