Hayek stated: “the requirements that the rules of true law be general does not mean that sometimes special rules may not apply to different classes of people if they refer to properties that only some people posses… some distinction will not be arbitrary
Copy from page 6 - 3
It can be seen that for society to function smoothly certain section of the community must be allowed limited immunity from the ordinary law, fir example, for the emergency services to save lives, need immunity from certain road traffic legislation. However if this statement is taken in to mean that everyone must be accountable for their action under the law, then it is a powerful constraint upon those who seek to abuse the law.
The problem that dicey faces in his second meaning are that it does not portray the reality. The government must distinguish people because of relevant social and economic considerations. Dicey clearly didn’t entertain the idea that people are unequal in society; weather physically, intellectually, financially or socially.
Dicey’s third and final meaning of the rule of law states:
“that with us the law of the constitution, the rules which in foreign countries naturally form part of a constitutional code, are not the source but the consequence of the right of individuals, as defined and enforced by the courts; that, in short, the principles of private law have with us been by actions of the courts and parliament so extended as to determine the position of the crown and of its servants; thus the constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land”
The second meaning of Dicey’s rule of law states:
“Equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administrated by the ordinary law courts”
Here Dicey is saying that we are all not only subject to law, but equal before it, irrespective of our role in the society. The public have more powers under the criminal law and the police and criminal evidence act 1984 for in excess of the citizens., so this conveys that no man is above the law; so the private citizens are under a duty to obey the same law, and that there can not be no special court or administrative tribunal for the state officials.
The principle of the equality before the law has raised problems for the rule of law. If the law failed to account for social differences and disadvantages, and simply presumed that everyone was equal and should be treated equally. This is where Hayek leaded to attempt to adapt the rule of law in a manner that Joseph Raz thought created “exaggerated expectations” for it.
It can be seen that for society to function smoothly certain section of the community must be allowed limited immunity from the ordinary law, fir example, for the emergency services to save lives, need immunity from certain road traffic legislation. However if this statement is taken in to mean that everyone must be accountable for their action under the law, then it is a powerful constraint upon those who seek to abuse the law.
Dicey’s
Several attack have been mounted against Dicey’s principles of the rule of law, as to his first principle Dicey states that “there would be no arbitrary or discretionary power”, but even in Dicey’s life time there were both arbitrary or discretionary powers in Britain.
The problem that dicey faces in his second meaning are that it does not portray the reality. The government must distinguish people because of relevant social and economic considerations. Dicey clearly didn’t entertain the idea that people are unequal in society; weather physically, intellectually, financially or socially.
It appears that Diceys second meaning is less successful than his first
Hayek stated: “the requirements that the rules of true law be general does not mean that sometimes special rules may not apply to different classes of people if they refer to properties that only some people posses… some distinction will not be arbitrary
