Judicial review of military and police powers
Judicial Review of Military and Police Powers
I. Overview
Military and police forces hold significant powers to maintain law and order, ensure security, and enforce laws. However, unchecked exercise of these powers can lead to violations of fundamental rights and abuses of authority. Judicial review acts as a crucial safeguard by scrutinizing whether military or police actions conform to constitutional and legal standards.
II. Principles Governing Judicial Review of Military and Police Powers
Legality
Actions must be authorized by law; absence of legal authority renders them invalid.
Reasonableness and Proportionality
Use of force or other powers must be reasonable and proportionate to the situation.
Procedural Fairness
Even in security contexts, due process and fair treatment are essential.
Accountability and Non-Arbitrariness
Power should not be exercised arbitrarily or maliciously.
Fundamental Rights Protection
Courts balance state security interests with individual rights such as life, liberty, and privacy.
III. Significant Case Law Illustrations
1. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001) – UK
Facts: Daly challenged prison officials’ policy of searching prisoners’ cells and seizing legal correspondence without consent.
Held: The House of Lords ruled that the policy breached the principle of legal professional privilege and was disproportionate.
Significance: Established that even in security settings, judicial review protects procedural fairness and privacy rights against arbitrary police or prison authorities.
2. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – United States
Facts: Police conducted an illegal search of Mapp’s home without a warrant, finding evidence used to convict her.
Held: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through illegal search violates the Fourth Amendment and is inadmissible.
Significance: Reinforced judicial control over police powers of search and seizure, emphasizing constitutional protections.
3. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) (2005) – UK
Facts: The case concerned indefinite detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism without charge.
Held: The House of Lords declared the indefinite detention incompatible with the Human Rights Act and unlawful.
Significance: Affirmed judicial oversight on military/police powers related to detention, balancing national security and human rights.
4. Guzzardi v. Italy (1980) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts: The applicant was placed under restrictive police supervision on an island, which severely limited his freedom.
Held: The Court ruled this constituted a deprivation of liberty and violated Article 5 (right to liberty and security).
Significance: Expanded the scope of judicial review of police detention powers to prevent excessive restrictions.
5. Bashir v. Government of Pakistan (2011)
Facts: Military officials conducted a raid and detention of civilians suspected of anti-state activities.
Held: The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the military must act within constitutional bounds and that arbitrary detention violates fundamental rights.
Significance: Reinforced judicial review of military powers in civilian contexts and protection of constitutional rights.
6. Mohamed v. Secretary of State for Defence (2010) – UK
Facts: A detainee held by UK forces in Iraq alleged mistreatment and sought judicial review.
Held: The courts held that military authorities must comply with domestic and international human rights obligations.
Significance: Extended judicial review to military conduct in conflict zones, ensuring accountability.
IV. Summary of Judicial Review Themes
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Focus | Judicial Holding | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Home Dept ex parte Daly | UK | Prisoners’ rights, searches | Protection against arbitrary searches | Privacy, procedural fairness |
| Mapp v. Ohio | USA | Illegal police searches | Exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence | Police power limits, constitutional safeguards |
| A v Home Dept (No 2) | UK | Detention without trial | Indefinite detention unlawful | Rights vs. security balance |
| Guzzardi v Italy | ECHR | Restrictive police detention | Deprivation of liberty requires judicial safeguards | Limits on detention |
| Bashir v Pakistan | Pakistan | Military detention of civilians | Military must comply with constitutional limits | Civilian rights, military accountability |
| Mohamed v Defence Secretary | UK | Military detainee treatment | Military must respect human rights obligations | Military accountability, human rights |
V. Conclusion
Judicial review of military and police powers serves as a fundamental check to ensure these authorities act within the law, respect constitutional rights, and avoid abuse or excess. Courts across jurisdictions have consistently emphasized:
The necessity of lawful authority and adherence to procedures.
The importance of reasonableness and proportionality in use of power.
Balancing security needs with individual fundamental rights.
Holding military and police accountable through judicial oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments