Judges today are much more independent – they give interviews and write articles criticizing the government, in particular over their legal policy. One thing they criticise the government about is “mandatory sentencing”.
What proposals have been put forward by the labour government for the reform of the judicial system?
The cost of legal aid has soared in the last ten years, and solicitors often charge £100 an hour to hire, with barristers costing even more. Even though citizens who cannot afford these rates may be entitled to free legal aid, a lot of people simply don't bother because the time and cost impediments cause more trouble than the case itself. There is great competition between solicitors firms for business, and many people think that the more a solicitor costs, the better the quality of advice is, which is not always the case. Even though the 'no win, no fee' formats introduced to solicitors by the Lord Chancellor are unjust, as the firms tend to take most of the compensation as legal fees.
Another reason, which may suggest a need for a reform, is the fact that British judges are un-elected and so are undemocratic. The present system is not only elitist, but it favours white, middle class, well educated males, proving that it can be a racist, sexist, class discriminating system. The public has no choice in deciding who judges and adjourns various cases.
A less distinguished point that criticises the UK judicial system is the number of scandals involving Freemasons and other 'secret clubs' in the structure. Two successive governments have conducted three formal inquiries on the extent of corruption by Freemasons in the judicial system and in municipal government. The government inquiries concluded that Freemasonry was having a negative effect on justice in the UK and recommended that is should be made a declarable interest so that all Freemasons publicly register if they are Judges, police officers, Magistrates, prosecutors, Crown Officers, Prison guards or parole officers. Only a small number of Freemasons have actually come forward, which would suggest that they might see themselves as being beyond and above the law.
Presently, the court of final appeal lies in the House of Lords, and since Law Lords are selected and appointed by the un-elected Lord Chancellor, this court is undemocratic and could be accused of being biased. At present many people believe the House of Lords if dominated by Conservative favouring right-wingers, similar to the American supreme courts. If we decided to adopt a Supreme Court as opposed to a court of final appeal in the Lords in Britain, unless it was elected the problem of possible bias would not be eradicated. The nine Supreme Court judges in the US were appointed by previous Presidents, and with seven favouring Republican ideology and only two opting for the Democrats, it is very unjust. An example of the possible unfairness could be the recent US presidential elections, where the Supreme Court voted Republican George W Bush as President as opposed to having another recount of voted which would have suited most Democrat supporters.
The head of the judicial system is the appointed Lord Chancellor, and even though this is a very important position, it is one of the least accountable ones. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor does not have to take responsibility for any mistakes or decisions. Even a replacement of the Lord Chancellor with a department of justice would have to be elected to eradicate unfairness, although a group of people would probably better than a single person in charge of the judicial system. An example of the biased nature of the Lord Chancellor could be the case when the department headed by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, faced an accusation of sex discrimination from a woman solicitor. Jane Coker, a legal aid lawyer from north London, took the department to an industrial tribunal over the appointment of a man as Lord Irvine's special adviser. Coker's solicitor said that the Lord Chancellor had broken the law by not even offering the job to her, and instead appointing another man whom he had been friends with. This is not the only report that criticises the Lord Chancellor; many different decisions has outraged people in the past, from the media when he suggested imposing bans on probing politicians to even Tony Blair.
What are the main arguments against the bill of rights?
The Human Rights Act was made law in October 2000, and this means that the European Convention on Human Rights is now incorporated into National Law. So far as is possible all legislation must be interpreted to give effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
The Human Rights Act 2000 sets out the British citizen's rights, ranging from the right to privacy to the right to move and stay in one's country. This is a benefit as now there will be more equality before the law; racist and sexist discrimination will be illegal, whether it is from individuals or companies. The Human Rights Act expands on the 1976 Race Relations Act, which made sure racial minorities were subject to the same policing and immigration methods as white people. Also, the Act expands on limiting religious, sexist and class discrimination, shown in 'the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion'.
The UK Human Rights Act will have more authority to protect citizens from individuals, groups or even the Government. For example, the Act will be able to deny access to parents who abuse their children as they are being denied 'the freedom from degrading treatment', and even protect adults from children with unacceptable behaviour; there are many child curfew laws and restraint orders being introduced at the moment. However, this may not be fully maintaining the offending children's parents' rights if their offspring is open to a series of treatments.
One bad thing about the Act is that the judiciary system will have to be extensively trained into dealing with cases that involve the Human Rights Act. In 1998 the Lord Chancellor referred to the role of the Judicial Studies Board in developing plans for such training, so British Judges are at least aware of some of the details. However, Judges will be trained to refer to textbooks or directly, through information technology, to the European Court's own database of judgements to ensure correct decisions on cases in England.
The cost of the implementation of this training for the judicial system has proved to be extremely expensive; the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary have set a total of £4.5 million aside. Together with the possible cost of the cases themselves in the future, and the guarantee of legal aid to those who cannot afford solicitors' fees, the
Performing of the Human Rights Act will cost taxpayers a great deal of money. However, it may be a small price to pay for the absolute entitlement to British citizens of their rights as a human being.
Many people believe that the Human Rights Act is enhancing British sovereignty; the courts will be able to overrule the government if they breach the convention, possibly suggesting that total power lies with the judges. Judges are not elected, and if our British sovereignty is going to lie in their hands, many people may request that the courts are elected and therefore democratic. However, since the judges will have a codified document that they have to refer to, there may be only a small chance that their powers are abused as they cannot be biased. Despite the concept of sovereignty becoming an issue, the UK courts will still have to be accountable to the European Court of Justice, and so it could be said that sovereignty therefore lies in Europe. However, this can be a positive situation for the citizen who claims to be a victim as if the UK courts rule them unconstitutional, they still have the option of going to the European Court with their human rights problem. However, this is costly and timely, and many people may not bother unless their case is very important.
The Human Rights Act can be said to enhance traditional values, as opposed to ending them, and the Human Rights Task Force strongly believes this. Even though there have been allegations that the Act has a strong impact on public schools and other private bodies with public functions, the Task Force condemn this by saying that many people are not interpreting the Human Rights as they are intended to be interpreted. They suggest that the rights in the Human Rights Act are not new; many of them came from the UK in the first place, and so does the idea of balance and responsibility which provides the context for interpreting these rights.
An advantage of the Human Rights Act is that the written document ensures that the government cannot abuse the Act, and any future dictatorships will not be able to put civilian's rights under threat as a bill of rights would make all rights and obligations clear to understand. Also, it would prevent any government from breaking various conventions; at present, the Prime Minister has the power to abolish the monarchy, and even though it would be unconstitutional the Act imposes legal limits of governments.
Many people feel it is simply unachievable in Britain today due to all the implications it would bring with it. It may not be clear how to interpret 'rights', and there are no set guidelines of what format the Act should take, such as how entrenched it should be. Many existing laws conflict with our Human Rights Act which is obviously a negative thing, and even though the Labour government introduced the Act to gain support from electorates, they surely cannot be pleased with the limits they have placed on their own power.
Also, many people believe UK citizens' rights were adequately protected before the Act was introduced, and it has been an expensive waste of taxpayers' money. The Human Rights Act that has been codified may possibly suggest a step forward into a whole new written constitution, although this is a totally different issue.
Overall, there are many different advantages and disadvantages that suggest the UK Human Rights Act are both good and bad, although Britain will not be able to judge it until the progress has been analysed and evaluated in the future. It has only been made a law for two months at present, so there is still plenty of time in the future to decide on the outcome and consequences of the Act.
