Rule of Law in the UK
Rule of Law in the UK
What is the Rule of Law?
The Rule of Law is a fundamental constitutional principle that ensures everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law. It means:
No one is above the law, not even lawmakers or the executive.
Laws must be clear, public, stable, and applied evenly.
Legal rights and duties must be respected and protected.
Legal processes must be fair and follow due process.
Arbitrary power or discretion is limited by law.
In the UK, the Rule of Law is a cornerstone of constitutional governance, protecting individuals against abuse of power and ensuring government operates within legal bounds.
Key Elements of the Rule of Law in UK Context
Supremacy of Law: All acts of government must have a legal basis.
Equality Before the Law: Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
Access to Justice: Everyone has the right to challenge the legality of governmental decisions.
Legal Certainty and Fairness: Laws must be clear and applied consistently.
Separation of Powers: To prevent concentration of power.
Important UK Cases Illustrating the Rule of Law
1. Entick v. Carrington (1765)
Facts:
Government agents forcibly entered the home of Entick, a political writer, and seized his papers under a warrant issued by a Secretary of State. Entick sued for trespass.
Issue:
Was the warrant lawful, and could the government officers lawfully enter private property without explicit legal authority?
Decision:
Lord Camden held that the warrant was unlawful because there was no statutory or common law authority permitting such entry. The officers were trespassers.
Significance:
Established the principle that government actions must have legal authority.
“No man is above the law”: government power must be justified by law, otherwise it's unlawful.
This case is foundational in UK law for protecting individual liberty against arbitrary state power.
2. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts:
The UK government triggered Article 50 (to leave the EU) without parliamentary approval. The claimant challenged this, arguing that only Parliament could authorize such a fundamental constitutional change.
Issue:
Can the government use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s explicit legislation?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 without an Act of Parliament. The prerogative powers cannot be used to change domestic law or rights without parliamentary approval.
Significance:
Reinforces Parliamentary sovereignty as a core constitutional principle.
Shows how the Rule of Law requires government action to have legal authorization and parliamentary consent.
Prevents the executive from bypassing the legislature.
3. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Facts:
The Home Secretary promised to introduce a new compensation scheme for firefighters but later changed course and did not implement it.
Issue:
Did the Home Secretary have lawful authority to refuse to implement the scheme after the promise?
Decision:
The Court held the Home Secretary acted unlawfully by not implementing the scheme, breaching the principle of legitimate expectation—a doctrine protecting fairness and consistency in administrative law.
Significance:
Demonstrates that government officials must act fairly and keep their promises when lawful expectations have been created.
Supports the Rule of Law principle of fairness and accountability in administration.
4. Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)
Facts:
Anisminic sought judicial review of a Commission decision regarding compensation, but the Act contained an ouster clause trying to prevent courts from reviewing Commission decisions.
Issue:
Can courts review administrative decisions when legislation attempts to exclude judicial oversight?
Decision:
The House of Lords held that errors of law made by a public body nullify its decisions, and ouster clauses cannot protect unlawful acts. Courts retained their power of review.
Significance:
Reinforces judicial review as a safeguard against unlawful exercise of power.
Emphasizes that no administrative body is above the law.
Protects Rule of Law by ensuring government decisions are subject to legal scrutiny.
5. R (Jackson) v Attorney General (2005)
Facts:
The Hunting Act 2004, which banned fox hunting, was challenged on the grounds that the Parliament Act 1949 used to pass it was invalid.
Issue:
Does the Rule of Law place limits on Parliamentary sovereignty?
Decision:
The House of Lords affirmed parliamentary sovereignty but recognized that the Rule of Law is a fundamental constitutional principle that might impose limits on Parliament’s powers.
Significance:
Indicates the Rule of Law and Parliamentary sovereignty coexist but the Rule of Law might limit parliamentary action in extreme cases.
This case explores the relationship between law-making power and constitutional principles.
6. R (Evans) v Attorney General (2015)
Facts:
The government refused to release Prince Charles’s letters to government ministers, invoking public interest immunity. The applicant challenged the refusal under the Freedom of Information Act.
Issue:
Could the government override the decision of the Information Commissioner and courts by issuing a ministerial veto?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the ministerial veto was unlawful and that the government must comply with the rule of law, which includes respecting court decisions.
Significance:
Demonstrates that government must comply with judicial decisions.
Upholds the principle that executive power is subject to legal limits and accountability.
Reinforces the importance of access to justice and transparency under the Rule of Law.
Summary of Rule of Law Principles from Cases
| Principle | Case | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Authority Required | Entick v Carrington | Government action must have a legal basis. |
| Parliamentary Sovereignty & Limits on Executive | Miller v Secretary of State | Executive must act within powers granted by Parliament. |
| Fairness and Legitimate Expectation | Fire Brigades Union | Government must act fairly and keep lawful promises. |
| Judicial Review & Limits on Ouster | Anisminic Ltd | Courts can review unlawful administrative acts despite ouster clauses. |
| Constitutional Limits on Parliament? | Jackson v Attorney General | Rule of Law may place implicit limits on Parliament. |
| Compliance with Judicial Decisions | Evans v Attorney General | Executive cannot override judicial rulings arbitrarily. |
Conclusion
The Rule of Law in the UK ensures that:
Government powers are exercised only within the law.
Individuals’ rights are protected against arbitrary use of power.
The judiciary acts as a guardian of legality and fairness.
Parliament remains sovereign but must legislate within constitutional principles.
Administrative decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent abuse.
These principles are vital to maintaining democracy, liberty, and justice in the UK legal system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments