Parliamentary sovereignty. " Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General . Discuss
'Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute ... It is no longer right to say that [Parliament's] freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified'. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, per Lord Hope of Craighead). At the heart of the British Constitution lies the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The sovereignty of the parliament is predominantly defined by Dicey as: "Parliament having the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament"1. Further Dicey stated that there are three key rules that need to be followed for the Parliament to be absolutely sovereign and these are the following: Parliament can make or unmake any law; Parliament cannot bind its successors and most importantly that no one can question Parliament's laws. Historically the principle received statutory recognition in the Bill of Rights 16892 where it was stated: ""That the pretended power of super sending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority without
Parliamentary Supremacy - the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion.
In the year of 1973, the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community. Twenty years later, the UK signed the Treaty on European Union (or Maastricht Treaty) and became a member state of the European Union1[MD1]. Being a highly controversial and debated topic, the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion. Parliamentary supremacy is a key principle of the British constitution that is based on the concept that Parliament is the supreme maker of English legislation and has the power to make or unmake any law they see fit.2 Whether these laws were morally or politically improper, did not matter as Parliamentary supremacy permitted Parliament to make such laws and they would still be held valid (Madzimbamuto)3. The constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey had very strong views on Parliamentary sovereignty and described it as 'the keystone of the law of the Constitution'. He believed that since the laws which were passed through Parliament were subject to intense scrutiny, it would be ensured that only good laws would make it through Parliament. In effect, these laws made by Parliament were not restricted by neither content nor territorial region.4 This idea was utilised by Sir Ivor Jennings who gave the well-known example of Parliament
Rule of Law
4. The Sixth Sir David Williams Lecture- The Rule of Law The difficulty of formulating an accurate definition for the Rule of Law has long been recognised by the authors of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The task of definition has therefore been left to the courts, leaving room for the meaning of the concept to somewhat evolve over time. Lord Bingham accepts that such a task of definition is a challenge, but nevertheless attempts it by examining its implications, which are presented in a series of eight sub-rules. The first of his proposed sub-rules states that 'the laws must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable.'1 In other words, people who are bound by the law must be able to find out what it is without undue difficulty. Legislative hyperactivity poses a threat to the proposed rule -'in 2004, some 3500 pages of primary legislation; in 2003, nearly 9000 pages of statutory instrument'2- as the sheer volume of legislation in itself raises problems of accessibility. Law judgments create similar problems due to their thorough and consequently lengthy nature. However, the superiority of common law judgments over single Privy Council judgments holds true, as a single judgment supported by very concise concurrences can cause continuing problems of interpretation. Lord Bingham's second sub-rule affirms that legal issues should be resolved
Role of The Ombudsman
PUBLIC LAW 1: ASSIGMENT 2 971 Words An essay on the ombudsmen _____________________________________________________ This essay considers the role of ombudsmen in resolving disputes in contrast to the role played by the judiciary. In answering this question it will be noted that the ombudsman system does not overlap with the judiciary, but rather, it closes the gaps created by the judiciary. It will be argued that although the system has advantages over the judiciary, it also has limitations. Though the question refers to ombudsmen in general, the essay will make reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in discussing the role played by ombudsmen how this role may be improved. Introduction The ombudsman has emerged as an effective method of dispute resolution in today's world. Its ideologies have been accepted widely as an attractive alternative to litigation. Consequently, it provides the public with remedial action where none is available through courts. Unlike courts, the ombudsman's services are cost effective, flexible, and informal. These qualities have contributed to its success in seeking justice against bad decisions. The origin The ombudsman concept has existed since the 19th century. Sweden was the first country to introduce an 'ombudsman' whose role was to investigate complaints from ordinary citizens.1 However, it wasn't until 1967
![Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.[1] Despite being the Mo](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/888953/listing/888953_1.jpg)
Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.[1] Despite being the Mo
Prerogative powers are very important source of UK Constitution dealing with issues such as foreign affairs. There are not written down, and can only be followed in common law. All major prerogative is now regulated by conventions.1 Despite being the Monarch's powers, they are being exercised by the Government. With no direct control, they are constantly being abused being seen as an indefinable constitutional power appearing in any form and under any circumstances. Prerogative remains a extensive mixture of rights, powers, duties and immunities operating in all the spheres of government.2 The most classic definition is by A. V Dicey ' the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority, which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown.'3 Exercise of royal prerogative is expressed by formal documents, by orders in Council or by instructions from Ministers acting on the Monarch behalf. Some of them belong to the Monarch (like appointing Ministers, power to dissolve parliament, assent to legislation, granting honours), but most is exercised by the Government on the Monarch behalf. In case of domestic affairs it is: appointment and regulation of civil service (GSHQ case4), directing the deposition of the armed forces and commissioning its officers (Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 763), the prerogative of mercy (R v Foster [1985] QB
To what extent (if at all) is it true to say that the United Kingdom constitution is based on a separation of powers?
Constitutional and Administrative Law Coursework Assignment To what extent (if at all) is it true to say that the United Kingdom constitution is based on a separation of powers? In addressing this question, it would be useful to explain just what the doctrine of the separation of powers consists of. The concept of the separation of powers goes back to the time of ancient Greece however it only came to be considered as a real 'grand constitutional principle' when the French theorist Montesquieu wrote 'L'Esprit des Lois' (The Spirit of the Laws). In this work, there was an argument for a strict separation of powers, that is the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. So in other words, the power to make the law, the power to govern the state and the power to apply and interpret the law should be separate for the protection of the liberties and freedoms of the individual. Montesquieu justifies his view and this is effectively shown by several passages of his work. 'When legislative power is united with executive power in a single person or in a single body of magistracy, there is no liberty'. The reasons given by Montesquieu for this was that the holder of that power, whether it is an individual or a group can create tyrannical laws and then exercise them in a tyrannical manner. He also said, 'Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative
“It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British Constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on the separation of powers” - Consider the extent to which this view is accurate.
"It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British Constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on the separation of powers" - Duport Steels V Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142, per Lord Diplock Consider the extent to which this view is accurate. Illustrate your answer with reference to decided cases. It is important to realise that the separation of powers is not something which has been drawn up by someone, nor is it a legal theory, but a doctrine, which has continuously been debated about by various academics and judges, having opposing views and opinions about its significance and existence. It is endlessly argued whether the unwritten British Constitution is the starting point of beliefs and principles set by a group of people, which we call the Separation of Powers. In the UK, there are three main powers that make up the constitution. They are in the form of: - - The Legislature - This is parliament. Parliament is the supreme body, which is built up by the House of Lords and the House of Commons and has the function of law making. - The Executive - This is the Government. The function of the government is to run the country in the interest of the general public. The Prime Minister, the civil services, the police and other ministers make up the government of a country - The Judiciary - The final division of a states' activity is in the form of the courts. It is
UK constitution
"The adoption of a [written constitution] would be a hazardous affair; it... risks forcing through unpopular or concealed changes to the constitution, it risks shifting political power from democratic institutions towards the judiciary" N.W. Barber "Against a written constitution" (2008) public law 11 at p.11 Explain and evaluate the arguments for and against a written constitution for the UK, taking into account the significant issues raised by the quotation above. Explain and defend your own view. This essay is going to explore and investigate the arguments both, for and against the adoption of a written constitution within the United Kingdom. First it is necessary to define what a constitution is and what the UK's constitution consists of. A constitution is broadly described as being a body of rules and responsibilities if the major organs and officers of government and with the relations between them. [1]In a narrower sense a constitution refers to a single document or written statement of a state's or country's constitutional rules in a documentary or codified form [2] . Britain is often mistakenly referred to as having an unwritten constitution which is misleading and would be untrue to say that the UK does not possess a written constitution; as strictly speaking much of the constitution can be found in the written documents such as Acts of parliaments.[3] Unlike
ROYAL PEROGATIVES
GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN LAW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Coursework Title Lord Frazer in the GCHQ case explained the past position of the courts in relation to the prerogative as follows - ''As De Keyser's case shows, the courts will inquire into whether a particular prerogative power exists or not and if it does exist, into its extent. But once the existence and extent of a power are established to the satisfaction of the court, the court cannot inquire into the propriety of its exercise.'' (Lord Frazer - Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374) Discuss the reasons for this limited judicial control of the prerogative in the past and critically assess the approach finally adopted in the GCHQ case and subsequently. Royal Prerogative derives from common law and they are not from statutes. By origin, royal prerogatives are attributes which of necessity inherent in the kings as the governors of the realm. The royal prerogative consists of those common law powers and immunities which are peculiar to the crown and go beyond the powers of a private individual. The history of the royal prerogatives was created by James 1 between 1603-1625. James 1 was the king of England and Scotland, and when he became king, he appointed himself head of parliament, courts and statutes. Powers of the King were legally based on the royal
'A written constitution is a mixed blessing'. Is this the lesson to be learned by would be reformers of the British constitution from studying the workings of the US constitution?
'A written constitution is a mixed blessing'. Is this the lesson to be learned by would be reformers of the British constitution from studying the workings of the US constitution? Gursharonjit Kaur Sond A constitution is a system of laws and customs established by the sovereign power of a state for its own guidance, to form an established form of government. The majority of liberal democracies have a constitution, including the UK, USA and France, but with each being unique and specifically designed to meet each countries need. For instance, 'the US constitution is written within a single document, at a particular date in time as a product of revolution'. (pg 109, McKay, 2001) The UK constitution on the other hand is instead derived from a number of sources, including Statute law, Common law and conventions rather than being written down in a single document. Due to this it is embedded with customs and tradition. One thing that constitutions do have in common though is that they intend to serve the same purpose, with the aim being to serve its citizens and to define the role and power of and between governmental institutions. A written constitution is often regarded as being a 'mixed blessing,' warning would be reformers of the British constitution that along with its advantages there are also disadvantages to having a written constitution. Codified constitutions have a
