Judiciary Justice Settlement

‘Central to the rule of law in a modern democratic society is the principle that the judiciary must be, and must be seen to be, independent of the executive.' Lord Hope, Miller v Dickinson [2002] 3 All ER 1041 PC

The courts are sometimes referred to as “lions under the throne” of the British Constitution. This saying expresses how eager the judiciary are to claw at government if they hinder individuals' rights and liberties. The judiciary takes an oath to dispense justice “according to the laws and usage of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. Whether it dispenses justice on an individual or on the government the judiciary should not fear scrutiny if an action it takes was not suitable. The Act of Settlement 1700 offers independence and security to High Court judges (and above) who cannot be dismissed by the executive, only by Her Majesty on an address by both Houses of Parliament on circumstances of serious misbehaviour may a judge be removed. Judicial security was later reinforced with the Supreme Court Act 1981 to ensure the judiciary's independence.

Struggling with writing your law essay?

If you're struggling with writing your law essay or problem question, then why not use our custom law essay writing service. You send us the law essay question and we give you the exact answer - in as little as 3 hours. We can help you when you need it most!

Unsure of how our ordering process works? Click here for a step-by-step essay ordering guide.

The judiciary must be independent of the executive to perform their functions properly. The judiciary must be seen to be independent to garner public confidence for judges must be, and appear to be impartial at all times. Another reason for judicial independence is because of the UK's unwritten constitution and the fact that there is no Supreme Constitutional Court and all constitutional issue are solved in regular courts. The judiciary must also be free to try cases against the executive without interference. They must also enforce the principle that no one is above the law and every one is to be held accountable to the law.

In this paper I will cover the rule of law and its effects on the judicial independence from executive in modern day. Then I will examine the current overlapping between the judiciary and executive and the future proposals and checks in places to insure an independent and impartial judiciary. Finally I will look at the implications of the Human rights Act 1998.

The rule of Law

“The keystone of the rule of law in England is the independence of judges.” The rule of law is essential to ensure that the judiciary is independent so that they are able to perform their functions and secure a democratic society.

Albert Venn Dicey has expressed is views in there key components which make up the rule of law. Although they were widely criticized by many Dicey's principles have influenced the UK democracy even in modern day. The first principle is that “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. In this sense, the rule of law is contrast with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary, or discretionary powers of constraint;” AV Dicey believed that individuals should not be subject to wide discretionary powers because wherever there is discretion, there is room for arbitrariness. It can be noted that in the UK Ministers and other executive bodies are often given broad discretionary powers to use as they see fit.

But the government of the day should also respect the law. This is shown in the case of Entick v Carrington [1765] where the defendant had broken into the plaintiff's premises and seized some papers. The plaintiff brought an action for trespass, but the defendant argued tat he had a warrant issued by the government authorising the trespass and seizure of the papers. The court refused to accept this and decided that as the government lacked any authority to issues warrants, the warrant was illegal. Thus, today, a police officer cannot enter one's house unless he or she has the owner's/occupier's consent or a lawful power to do so.

In contrast was the case of Liversidge v Anderson [1942], where the Home Secretary was empowered under Defence Regulations (issued under the Emergency powers (Defence) Act 1939) to imprison any person if he had ‘reasonable cause to believe' such a person had hostile associations. Liversidge was detained without trial under the Defence Regulations and sued the Home Secretary for false imprisonment. The House of Lords (4-1) held that the court could not inquire into the grounds for detention, as long as there was no evidence to suggest that he had acted other than in good faith. Thus the Home Secretary's decision would not be challenged and he could not be compelled to disclose his reasons. Liversidge v Anderson is the model example of the courts failing to challenge the executive's wide discretionary powers when it comes to matters of national security.

This previous case would be more in line with Sir Ivor Jennings view that discretionary powers were need in order for executive bodies to apply broad rules and that man cannot be ruled by rules alone he stated: “

The second principle is that “no man is above the law; every man and woman, whatever be his or her rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals;” This meaning is an expression that all man should be equal under the laws of the courts including any government official even if it meant the Prime Minister if acts they perform were seen to be without reason. Jeffery Jowell had a clear perspective on Dicey's ‘equality of all before the law' he stated: “…its ghost has refused to rest. It rises still to haunt a minister who publishes ‘guidelines' that cut across the powers of the statue under which he operates, the minister who penalises local authorities for overspending without giving them a fair hearing, a government department which decides in accordance with a secret code not available to the public, or a Prime Minister who seeks to deprive civil servants of their rights to remain members of a trade union.

The final principle is “the general principle of the constitution (as, for example, the right to personal liberty, or the right of public meeting) are, with us, the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of private persons in particular cases brought before the courts.”

The not so separate ‘separation of powers' and its evolution

The government consists of three separate organs or bodies the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The doctrine of separation of powers states that each body of government should have their own distinction functions in which they perform and that each should act as a check for the other this was expressed in Article 16 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man 1789: “Any society in which the safeguarding of rights is not assured, and the separation of power is not observed, has no constitution.”It is clear that while the United Kingdom seeks a separation of powers, government bodies tend to over step there functions form time to time. The common law and statues have provided for government interference with the others organs for the most part but the most noticeable overlapping of separation of power in the UK government is held by the office of the Lord Chancellor (prior to the Constitution Reform Act 2005). Traditionally the Lord Chancellor is a member of all there organs of government. He is a member of the executive that sits in the cabinet, he is head of the judiciary who presides over the House of Lords and can exercise judicial functions. The Lord Chancellor is also a member of the legislature because he is a member of the House of Lords.

Baron Montesquieu stressed that each organ of government should perform there function without interference of the other and stressed the importance of the independence of the judiciary he stated: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty ….Again, there is no liberty if the power of judging is not separated from the legislative and the executive. If it were joined to the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. If it were joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end to everything if the same man or same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, were to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing public affairs and that of trying crimes or individual cause.” Lord Bingham of Cornhill in contrast to Montesquieu describe the overlapping of that exists organs of government as ‘a characteristic feature of democracies'. He states that “Whatever overlap there may be under constitutions on the Westminster model between the exercise of executive and legislative powers, the separation between the exercise of judicial powers on the one hand and legislative and executive powers on the other is total or effectively so. Such separation, based on the rule of law, was recently described … as ‘a characteristic feature of democracies'.”

The executive have some powers which they have exercised in the passed and the judiciary did not interfere this is called prerogative power “…Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament…” but with the landmark GCHQ case the House of Lords stated they can review any executive matter even if the powers were that of prerogative.

It was expressed by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs: “I have been frustrated at the inability to have general conversations of principle with law lords… because of their sense of propriety. I do find that frustrating. I have never met any of them. I think there is a view that it's not appropriate to meet in terms of their integrity. I'm not sure I agree…and I regret that. I think some dialogue between the senior judiciary and the executive would be beneficial, and finding a channel is quite important.”

“In passing I must, however, point out that ministers do not always understand the principle of the separation of powers so far as it affects the judiciary... Law Lords and Cabinet Ministers are not on the same side. In public interest the principle of the separation of powers requires that it should be so. A cosy relationship between Ministers and Law Lords would be a worrying development.”

Trying to ensure an independent judiciary

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 is a move towards a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive powers. It is a proposal to reform some of the historical overlapping that have created irregularity in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 who requirement for judicial independence under Article 6 of the ECHR is constantly being violated.

These key reforms are not enacted as yet but when enacted government ministered will have to by law uphold the independence of the judiciary and will be barred from influencing judicial decisions. This upholds Dicey's Rule of Law. The Judicial Committee of the House Lords will be replaced by a new Supreme Court which will be separate from Parliament. The Supreme Court will boost its own staff, budget, building, and judges will be independently appointed. Judicial appointments will be left to the hands of the office of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has modified the role of the Lord Chancellor drastically the first bill to abolish the role completely was rejected and the role was change to the Secretary of State of Constitutional Affairs a position that will not be a member of the Supreme Court. The judicial functions which were performed by the Lord Chancellor will now be performed by the new position of the President of the Courts of England and Wale a position which the Lord Chief Justice will absorb. It should be noted that even though the office of the Lord Chancellor have been reformed it has not been abolished.

Implications with the Human Rights Act 1998

Dicey's view on residual rights for modern day UK depends on that of a narrow view in that Parliament would be a check for the executive power and that the judiciary would not fear to impose laws against any public authority who sought to infringe on individual's liberties. Executive powers have grown enormously and has led to the assumption that neither Parliament nor the judiciary are effective to ensure they keep within scoop. Before the incorporation of the European Convention Of Human Rights in to domestic law Lord Bingham expressed that the judiciary was powerless to protect fundamental rights in the absence of a higher law he sated “The elective dictatorship of the majority means that, by and large, the government of the day can get its way, even if its majority is small. If its programme or its practice involve some derogation from human rights Parliament cannot be relied on to correct this. Nor can judges. If the derogation springs from statues, the must faithfully apply the statute. It is a result of administrative practice, there may well be no basis upon which they can interfere. There is no higher law, no frame of reference, to which they can properly appeal”

The Human Rights Act 1998 respects the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. If there is a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights and under section 3 a piece of legislation cannot be interpreted or bring the Act in line, the Act cannot be declared invalid.

Conclusion

While the judiciary should be independent there is a need for check on the judiciary as well. There have been controversies over the principle that the judiciary should apply the law and not make it, especially in the areas of criminal law because it contravenes Parliamentary Supremacy. So when the judiciary resurrected the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals in Shaw v DPP [1962] AC 220 and later affirmed the decision in R v Knuller Ltd [1973] AC 435 then created the offence of outraging public decency in the case of R v Gibson [1990] 2 QB 619.

“The Rule of Law is a necessary principle in a constitutional democracy, but it is not the only such principle.” The principle of a separation of powers stresses the importance of the judiciary independent from the executive is also essential to a modern democracy.

Get A Free Essay Quote Order Your Custom Essay

FREE OSCOLA Referencing Generator

Need help with referencing your OSCOLA citations? Our free OSCOLA reference generator will do it all for you!

Do you need to translate this page?

To translate this page into another language, please select the correct language from the box below.

Subscribe below and get new essay/resource uploads direct to your inbox

LOOKING FOR SPECIFIC HELP? We can help you in many law areas!

Did you know that we also provide a service that can help you in other law areas such as:

Want to see what our customers say about us? Click here to watch our video.

Want to become a writer for Law Teacher and earn up to £4,000 per month? Click here now!

Secure your law degree, order your human rights law essay right now!