Category: Judicial System

Over the many years, there has been a large debate as to whether or not society in the United Kingdom are being judged fairly. In my personal opinion, we are not. The term ‘fair’ or ‘fairly’ in this instance and particular question however though, can be applied to many reasons as to why people do not feel they are being judged by an impartial system such as the individual characteristics of senior judges for example.

One example of one source that does not believe the judicial system of today to be fair is a source published by the Guardian and a legal correspondent called Owen Bowcott who is also the author. The title of the article reads that “Only one-quarter of Britons believe legal system is fair”. The article further down states that “only a quarter of the population believe that the UK’s legal system is fair and transparent according to a survey that was released by a legal law firm”. Bowcott also goes onto later on reveal that around “two-thirds of those questioned feel that wealth is now a more important factor in gaining access to justice than it used to be”. This statement from this article alone, gives us a large perspective as to whether or not the judicial system is fair as this quote states that being wealthy and upper-class are more important in the world today in the justice system which does not show much diversity.

If we were to next look now at the actual judges that are in the United Kingdom, then we would be able to compare them to the stereotype that has been crafted over the years which is what they look like which is most of the time old, male, white and at least middle class. An example of one judge is Lord Justice Hamblen who is a current judge of the Supreme Court and also two of his colleagues, Lord Justice Leggatt and Professor Andrew Burrows. All three of these men, although not matching all of the stereotype’s characteristics of the appearance of a judge in the United Kingdom today and are all either male, white, elderly.

Going back to diversity now and if we were to look at the different types of courts in the UK that we have such, the High Court or the Court of Appeal, then we could look at the number of women who are judges there are as opposed to the total number of judges there are in the entire court itself and also its entire ethnic minority. According to judiciary.gov.uk, The High Court has a total of 12 judges where only one of them is a woman and the ethnic minority is white. In addition to this, the Court of Appeal has a total of 39 judges where there is only eight women and again the ethnic minority here is white. From these two courts alone, we can clearly see that there is no diversity whatsoever has it is not a close number at all in regards to the number of male and female judges in these courts and in both of these two courts they are dominated by a white ethnic minority. Also, in terms of district judges, there are 422 of them where again, the ethnic minority is white. As a result of looking at these numbers, we can clearly see that there are indeed too many males and nowhere near enough females in the judicial system. It is also important to consider the fact that all of the courts that we have looked at, that all of their ethnic minority are white. After looking at this in my opinion, it makes it impossible for us to even consider that the system that we are being judged by is diverse which is a huge factor tying into the actual question of whether or not we are indeed by judged by a fair judicial system overall.

Another source we can look at here once again comes from the Guardian and the author again being Owen Bowcott. The title of this article reads that “Judiciary needs to be more diverse” peers say. Further down the article a bit, it reads “targets should be set to appoint more women and minority ethnic judges if progress is not made within five years, a House of Lords committee recommends”. In this instance, this is a particularly intriguing and interesting quote to look at here as this article was published by Bowcott in March 2012. Now nearly eight years on from this article being published, we would have to admit here that these targets have not exactly been met at all as if we were to go back to my previous paragraph about the number of judges who were women and what their ethnic minority was, the numbers of judges who are women in these courts are still very low and the ethnic minority is still very much white. In terms of the diversity side of this, we can once again look here as Bowcott also states that “only one in 20 judges is non-white and fewer than one in four judges is female”. These are not diverse numbers at all which only adds more to the reason as to why I feel that we are not being judged by a fair judicial system.

One source that we can look at however though that not only tells us that judicial system, more specifically with how to do with how they are appointed is a journal called ‘Diversity in the Judiciary: The Case For Positive Action’ by Kate Malleson. A quote from the book that shows us this says “a range of policies has been developed in England and Wales to reform the judicial appointments process so as to promote greater diversity. But despite two decades of official activity, the pace change has been far slower than anticipated”. This quote here shows us that although there are actions being taken to make the judicial appointment process more diverse, over the span of two decades there is most likely still not being enough done as there most definitely should be to make sure the process is diverse which would ultimately ensure that the judicial system is more diverse and most importantly fair.

In terms of how people are selected to be in office across both England and Wales, this is done through the Judicial Appointments Commission or better known as JAC. According to judiciary.uk, the Judicial Appointments Commission is “an independent commission that selects candidates for judicial office in courts in both England and in Wales”. In regards to its background, the commission was set up back on April 3 2006 and put under the terms of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The purpose of the commission was in order to maintain and strengthen judicial independence by selecting the candidates themselves for the judicial office and out of the hands of the Lord Chancellor which would then as a result of this, then make the appointment process much clearer. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 in addition to this, also helps to ensure that the appointment selection process is as fair as possible as according to once again judiciary.uk that this is an act that is a “duty on government ministers to uphold the independence of the judiciary, barring them from trying to influence judicial decisions through any special access to judges”. This is one of the few changes that this act has brought in. However, in this instance relating to the actual question of whether the system is fair or not, it is important to consider whether or not the act itself is effective on the system which in my opinion it is not entirely.

Going back to the journal ‘Diversity in the Judiciary: The Case For Positive Action’ by Kate Malleson, another quote that we can use here to help answer the question is where it says “Yet despite the two decades of official activity, the pace of change has been far slower than anticipated by many in the judiciary, the government, and the legal profession and there remains little prospect of any significant shift in the composition of the bench in the near future”. This is a seriously concerning thing as this quote from the journal shows us that even across the span of two decades, there is still a serious lack of diversity in the judiciary system across both England and Wales. It is also important here to consider the date that this journal was published in which was 2009. It has now been over another decade, and yet judging by my own experiences and research that I have done, there is still a huge lack of diversity that is being promoted across the judiciary system.

Another source that can be used to here once again comes from the Guardian and again Owen Bowcott. This is an article that is titled ‘White and male UK judiciary from “another planet” says Lady Hale. In this article, Lady Hale, the president of the Supreme Court in the UK, says that the judiciary needs to be more diverse so that the public feel that those on the bench are genuinely ‘’our judges’’ rather than ‘’beings from another planet’’. Further down the article, Bowcott goes onto reveal that in the interview that Lady Hale believes that a ‘more balanced gender representation on the UK’s highest court’. In addition to this, we can also see that she says that swifter progress promoting those from minority ethnic backgrounds and with ‘’less privileged backgrounds’’ is needed. Further down this article, Bowcott reveals to us that Lady Hale is the courts first president female since its creation back in 2009. From this alone, we can clearly tell that there is a lack of diversity and equality within the Supreme Court alone due it appearing to be male dominated in regards to its previous presidents. Again here, I feel that it is important to consider the date as to when this article was published which was only last the beginning of last year in 2019 as Lady Hale says that more diversity is needed within the judiciary system. From previous research above, it has become evident to us that change in terms of making the judiciary system more diverse and equal has been slow so over the space of just over a year, it is highly unlikely that much if anything has changed.

The Guardian and Owen Bowcott also once again provides yet another valuable source to us here as this next source, titled ‘Lack of diversity among senior judiciary’ is “serious constitutional issue”. Further down the article, Bowcott talks about how senior judges have warned that ‘the senior judiciary is dominated by privately educated white men and may need ‘’targets with teeth’’ in order to improve diversity on the benches. This in particular, is a very important article to talk about as not only does it to reveal to us the issue that is the lack of diversity within the senior judiciary, but also confirms to us that once again, we can see that it is purely male dominated with no women and also about how they are all being privately educated which in regards to the appointments and how they are selected, it does not make it fair at all.

I myself a month or two ago, was given the chance to attend both the Magistrates and Crown Court in Swansea where I watched a few cases and also where I observed a few things for me in the end to take away to write up on about. These were observations such as who was sitting in the judgement section, what cases were being judged, how I thought they were handled, and whether or not I found the end result to be fair or not. During my visit to Crown Court I got the chance to observe a murder case. During the case I noted the judgement section in particular to be mostly male and elderly which is what beforehand I expected. I did feel in this instance that the judicial handled the case well and that ultimately the result at the end which they came to was fair.

In conclusion to the actual question however, I do not feel that we are being judged by a fair judicial system as ultimately, I do not feel that the UK’s judicial system is nearly as diverse as it should be as there are not enough women as there should be in the judicial, the ethnic minority is far too white and too elderly. In my opinion, this needs to change as it is seriously important as diversity in this situation is extremely important and massively affects how fair the system really is.

In this essay, I am going to look at the main pros and cons of party elections for public policy, as well as analyze whether it would be better to elect or appoint judges.

First let’s talk about some of the advantages of holding a partisan election. With the partisan elections, it allows the ones, who are running to campaign and get a better understanding of what is needed to be done for the people of the state and to get their name out there so people will recognize them on the ballets. With the partisan election is makes the voting process go along much faster seeing as they can just head to one of 3 columns, either Democrat, Republican or Independent, and they don’t have to sift through a huge list of people choosing which would be best to vote for.

Now with nonpartisan elections, there aren’t any real costs but with partisan elections, there are the costs of having to campaign and trying to get your name out there, whether it is through newspaper ads, radio, TV ads, or interviews etc., and those all can cost a lot of money for those running.

Now with nonpartisan elections the voters must do their research on the candidates to find out why they’re going to vote for whom they chose. Many people now days are busy whether it’s with caring for their kids or going to their 8+ hour jobs and trying to make ends meet, so not a lot of them would have time to put aside to go out and do research on each candidate. And due to this time restraint people will either just not vote or just mark someone randomly on the ballet without any real knowledge of that candidate making it a big disadvantage for those who could do some good for the people. And with appointing judges it will remove much of the politics associated with electing judges.

With partisan elections, it can also be very troublesome for the ones, who are running, because they have to go out and raise money and tout yourself around and someone the people running don’t feel comfortable with doing that, and due to that those good candidates get to throw out of the elections.

Now neither system is ideal, but both can contribute important values to the system. However, with the elections it can very much yield a popularity contest or name recognition result, with voters having no real information on the candidate’s legal knowledge, skill, or temperament. Now an appointment may be a political move, again with less value placed on the candidate’s legal knowledge, skill, or temperament than on their political connections and history. Appointed judges will go through a vigorous process. Although the appointment process isn’t truly perfect, but it can give better chances to those who have the necessary political connections, it can still be a far better process than through the election system. Whereas, with an election, the public most of the time is not necessarily well informed about the candidates that are running and usually the individuals with the most money to throw at the slates tend to come out ahead rather than those who could be better suited to be elected but not have the funds to campaign for it. Also, with an election process, the judicial position becomes politicized. Judicial candidates are often called upon to take positions on issues like abortion, gun control, the death penalty, etc., that judicial candidates should not ethically give.

Unless and until there is a method in which judicial elections are not politicized and a campaign limit is placed on the judicial electoral process, the appointment method is by far better suited for the process in which we chose those who serve as judges.

Many skinheads and racist whites have been prosecuted for violence against African Americans, Asians, and other racial or religious minorities. People are not aware of any of them arguing that they should be acquitted because of their hatred of other races or religions. However, there is a famous case in which white rage was a determining factor and which allows us to explore with the viability of a white rage defense. The case took place in Hawaii in 1931 and involved U.S. Navy lieutenant, Thomas Massie, who was accused of murdering Joseph Kahahawai.

The major contributing factors to the distorted system are someone’s position in society and their ethnicity. Andy Martin, a writer for the Independent News Letter, mentions ironically that the Massie case was defended by Clarence Darrow, who delivered “a four-hour closing speech begging for the sympathy of the jury”. As a result, Darrow lost the case and Thomas Massie, Grace Fortescue, and the rest who were involved in the incident were found guilty, but instead of receiving a “ten years apiece” they were instead given a “one hour and a glass of champagne in the governor’s office”. Clarence Darrow was then criticized by the Hawaiians as taking the side of the racial prejudice. The fact that Darrow’s defense of Lieutenant Massie and cohorts put him on the wrong side of the most racially charged trial in the history of Hawaii. The values one is defending and the messages one is sending to the public are critical to a lawyer embarking upon a white rage defense. Examining Darrow’s actions can shed some light on these issues and help advocates think through their political responsibilities when choosing to defend someone.

Just like the case in 1931 when Joseph Kahahawai was murdered and accused of a crime with a lack of evidence, there are still in society today many people who are arrested or imprisoned based on their appearance or ethnicity. Another prime example would be the case of the death of 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin, who was fatally shot on February 26, 2012, at Sanford, Florida by the 28-year-old, George Zimmerman. Nick Summer, a writer for the Daily Beast, mentions that Zimmerman confused Martin of doing “suspicious activity” and claimed that “it was self-defense”. The jury found the accused not guilty for both second-degree murder and the lesser charge of manslaughter. George Zimmerman was not charged with anything regards to the law, he was free of all charges and seen as not guilty for the crime that he committed. It was ruled that he acted in self-defense and that the shooting that took place that night was not premeditated. After the case, millions of people including family and friends of Martin protested to demand justice for Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman not receiving some sort of punishment for his actions. Zimmerman has not been arrested or charged due to insufficient evidence and self-defense as of today.

Privileged circumstances and influential connections is a massive advantage in the Judicial System as we can find a correspondence between the Thalia Massie Case back in 1931 and the Travyon Martin case back in 2012. These crimes happened several years apart, yet they seem to be cut from the same cloth. When will society evolve into something habitable?

The US runs an exciting judicial system, where different states retain the right to determine the way to have judges in the courtrooms. Some states consider governor appointments, while others prefer to have partisan elections determine the judges to grace the court sessions. Texas is one of the states that has maintained the use of the partisan election of judges for years. This paper discusses why I believe Texas should consider the state-level judges being appointed by the Texas governor with the approval of the Texas Senate.

Just like other elections, the partisan elections for judges are highly publicized events in Texas. The elections are the center for huge funding with both individuals and donors offering support to different parties seeking the position of judges in the state courts. To maintain sanity in funding, different limits of financial support have been developed. For example, the Judicial Campaign Fairness Act in 1995 requires that individual contribution to hopeful judges for individuals not to exceed $5,000 to 30,000 for the law firms (National Center for State Courts, n.d.). Considerable interests from the investors and law firms have caused problems on the objectiveness of the judges in making decisions that touch on the donors. Considering that Texas is largely a one-party state, there is a concern on justice for all in the judicial system, as judges may wish to promote their election interests while making judgments.

I undoubtedly support the appointment of judges by the governor with the approval of the Texas Senate. Using this framework sounds official and helps separate the process of judge appointment from political pressures and undue influence. One of the greatest weaknesses of the election of the judges is the temptation of conflict of interest when the judges assume the podium in deciding cases (Champagne et al., 2013). Law firms invest heavily in their preferred candidates, which creates an impression of safeguarding their position for the cases they may be pushing in courts of law. Judges would feel the pressure when making judgments on cases involving their campaign sponsors. Similarly, the individuals who actively participated in the judges’ campaigns would mount unduly influence the judicial opinions in court cases. As a way of avoiding such cases, the governor should take charge of judges’ appointments with the approval of the Texas Senate.

The involvement of the Texas Senate makes the difference. Before judges get the mantle to serve, the Texas Senate will be sure of their suitability. Areas of concern may include background checks, the vision the judge wishes to achieve, and how it collectively adds up to the US judicial system. The best way to have the best judges serving is to ensure that there is a thorough process that ensures only the qualified judges interested in serving the community get a chance to listen and determine cases. For this to happen, the appointment process should be withdrawn from the political sphere and be entrusted to relatively independent minds.

However, it is worth noting that either election or appointment of judges carries different drawbacks. Although judges’ appointment by governors under the watch of Texas Senate is preferred, there is concern that governors and the Texas Senate may prioritize candidates they feel may promote their interests. It means that this method may also open up grounds for conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, being a two-stage process that involves the governor’s opinion and oversight from the Texas Senate, the process is more appealing.

I uphold that Texas should consider the option of state-level judges being appointed by the Texas governor with the approval of the Texas Senate. Electing judges creates loopholes for conflict of interests as campaign sponsors may demand favor in return for the support they showed. The process also paints a tainted image to the judicial system due to politicizing the process, and this may impact on the independence of the sector. It is better judges are appointed by governors with the approval of the Texas Senate as this option allows thorough scrutiny of the potential judges. Such a process will ensure only qualified judges get a chance to handle judicial matters.

One document that influenced the United States Constitution is Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was written in 1215 by the barons. This document was a promise from King John, that stated King John and the future monarchs would stop making certain actions that would do harm to the people of England and to others. This document was forcefully signed by King John because King John treated his people very unfairly. In 1776 they looked at the Magna Carta as a model for the demands of liberty from the English crown on the eve which became evident in the United States constitution. This now foreshadows the Fifth Amendment that states “nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” (Hisory.com. Editors, 2017).

One thing that affected the federal system is it made dual federalism. Dual federalism was made in the late 1870s. During this time the states and national government would exercise the authority of the jurisdiction. There were two different factors that contributed to it. One was the supreme court rulings by the state and the federal governments. The second was the prevailing philosophy. This shaped the United States’ landscape in the seriocomic world. The industrialization part of the world changed tremendously after this. Since there was no national supervision to have equal fairness in the market industry, collision behaviors began to arise in the market industries. There are three different branches of the United States government. There is not one branch that is more powerful than the other due to checks and balances. However, I do feel like there is a more dominant branch and it is more influential in today’s society.

The Judicial Branch I believe is the more dominant one. The Judicial Branch interprets laws that are made up of the legislative branch but are enforced by the executive branch. The main goal of this branch is to interpret laws. This may seem like such a little role they play in the government but it is actually a big role. In today’s world, they are a part of the court system. In 1789 the Judiciary Act was introduced to the United States Senate. This is when the court system was being made up with their guidelines. It established a federal district court in every state. The Supreme Court has made an influential impact on the court system. The supreme court is the highest court system there is out there. Once the Supreme Court has come up with a decision, it can be appealed by anyone. Not anyone can just be seen by this court system.

The supreme court can interpret the meaning can also interpret the meaning of law and decide whether it is relevant or how it should be applied. An example of this can be when they made gay marriage legal. Everyone was not okay with this law. Since the law was made, they had to accept this because it can not be repealed by the state. Public opinions, interest groups, and political parties all impact voting. The impact that public opinion has on voting is affected by the media. The mass media is considered to be the fourth unofficial branch. In the society we live in now, everyone uses some sort of media, whether it’s television, radio, or social media to keep up with what’s going on in the world. Depending on where someone can get their media from can depend on if it can make a candidate look bad. Some media can give false accusations about a candidate. This is why people’s opinions start to change. Interest groups are groups of people that share the same goal of influencing good public policies. People in interest groups usually try to influence the voting by sending fundraising emails, direct mail, and website advertisement.

A type of interest group that influences voting is a super PAC. This committee makes independent expenditures in political races by running ads, sending emails, or communicating with messages to help advocate a specific candidate. There is no limit on the money that the committee will use for expenditures. Political parties’ main goal is to win the election. The two different parties have each different views on how they see things. When these parties don’t agree with a certain political view it can affect the way the voting turnout happens. The electoral college gets to choose who is elected. The Electoral College consists of individuals from the Senate and the House of Representatives. They impact the voting because if the political parties do not influence the Electoral College then a certain candidate who is running will not win the election.

References

1. History.com Editors (2017). Judicial Branch. Retrieved from https://www.history.com/topics/us-governmnt/judicial-branch
2. The Evolution of Federalism. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/odessa-americanngovernment-2/chapter/the-evolution-of-american-federalism/
3. The Judicial Branch. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-judicial-branch/
4. The Pre-Revolutionary Period and the Roots of the American Political Tradition. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/odessa-americanngovernment-2/chapter/the-pre-revolutionary-period-and-the-roots-of-the-american-political-tradition/
5. What is a PAC? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php
6. What is the Electoral College and How Does it Affect the Voting Process? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://onlinepoliticalsciencedegree.eku.edu/insidelook/what-electoral-college-and-how-does-it-affect-voting-proces

Judicial review has been a fundamental aspect of the rule of law in acting as a check for the government by the courts. The question arises however as to the extent to which judicial review has a place in the English judicial system. This issue has arisen more recently as a result of the Independent Review of Administrative Law and the initial response it received from the government regarding the future of judicial review in the English legal system and sparks the question as to whether judicial review merely exists on the terms and for as long as it is tolerated by Parliament. This would particularly be an issue in situations where the government continues to find itself on the receiving end of adverse judicial review decisions by the courts which could potentially lead to an attempt to alter or weaken the function of judicial review.

With parliamentary supremacy in mind, an action like this on behalf of the government could be argued to be completely within their power. As per his well-known definition of parliamentary sovereignty, A.V. Dicey stated: “The sovereignty of Parliament is (from a legal point of view) the dominant characteristic of our political institutions”. He later added: “The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”. This statement essentially forms the argument that Parliament can make any law that it chooses to make and that nobody, including the courts, can interfere or object to this which of course challenges the whole idea or function of checks and balances.

The significance and power of legality are what protect individuals and entities from any form of illegal or unjust actions as this helps to defend themselves in lawsuits. All legal systems must have a means of reviewing their legality to ensure their legitimacy and hence, the European Union has developed many methods to do so which are reviewed by the EU courts.

According to Lord Bingham, the rule of law has no definite meaning as such, and hence this creates room for questionable debate in the academic field. However, he has divided the rule of law into two groups where each group has multiple contradicting theories as well: the formalist or thin rule of law and the substantive or thick rule of law. According to the first approach, the involvement of the judiciary can be minimized as the rule of law has been conceptualized in a way that is too bereft of substance to produce just consequences and not focus on the content. This concept states that the law is fair for all and to attain justice one can simply follow certain rules to comply with the rule of law. The thick rule of law not only considers the form of law but also the reasoning (substance) wherein the judges are practical and open to stimulating any reasonable development. According to Dworkin and Allan’s substantive view, the rule of law inherently protects certain or all individual rights.

Another legal theorist, Dworkin has argued that authorities should determine constitutional issues based on the best theory of justice, which is fundamental to determining what rights individuals now have. Law propositions are valid if they are based on principles of justice, fairness, and procedural due process that give the most constructive interpretation of the community’s legal practice. Dworkin acknowledges the above-mentioned formal concept of the rule of law, referring to it as the ‘rule book’ model. This subsequently means that the government should never utilize its authority against individuals unless it conforms with regulations that have been established in advance and made public. However, it is understood that individuals should equally recognize a rights-based understanding of the rule of law. The aim of governing by an accurate public understanding of individual rights is the rule of law. According to this perspective, individuals have moral rights and obligations toward one another, at the same time, have political rights against the state, which should be codified in positive law so that citizens can use the courts to uphold them. This does not imply that this perspective of the rule of law is compatible with a single notion of justice or liberty. It does, however, imply that it is not self-contained in terms of the specific philosophy of justice or vision of liberty.

Likewise, Joseph Raz, Professor Lon Fuller, and many other legal theorists have many opinions regarding the rule of law however, A.V Dicey’s theories and principles are some of the theories that are to date being followed. According to A.V Dicey, a jurist, even the public authority does not have the right to act in a manner that may conflict with the interest of individuals’ rights or freedom, unless Parliament has explicitly given them the right to do so. The rule of law is one of the primary common laws established by Dicey hence, using his and a blend of other theorist principles the rule of law has established many elements some of the fundamental elements are as follows:

• Abhorrence of arbitrary power. “No one is above the law, and everyone is subject to the law, and all are subject to the same law administered in the same courts”. Therefore, all individuals and entities are seen as equal before the law and no special exceptions are considered. This element states that the famous ultra vires doctrine can be imposed on all government bodies and officials. Moreover, one cannot be punished or perceived to be guilty unless there has been a breach of law until then heshe would be seen as innocent until then.
• Formal court system. The law must be created in a manner that has little to no discretion and ensures consistency. This enables individuals to act in a certain manner over a period and their actions can be easily justified based on the predefined rules. A very rational yet effective means of evaluating actions through stable procedures.
• Equality before the law. This element ensures that no culprit can escape the repercussions of the law just because of higher power or wealth. A fair trial must take place for the person in question, regardless of their gender, socio-economic class, wealth, religion, and so on. For instance, jail bail is a legal right if approved by the court, so a poor individual must also be able to avail of this right just like a wealthy person would be able to do so.
• Separation of powers and judicial independence. The separation of powers within the government body ensures that there is no power abuse as the three arms of the government have equal power and rights. This element states that the judiciary must be independent of the other arms and have the liberty to give its verdict with no external influences. It also states that all public bodies must act within the law, and none should try to breach the law with illegality.

The relationship between both judicial review and the rule of law is examined by assuming the rule of law is an essential component to stand up a strong and stable government that benefits its citizens or people of country. By the rule of law, society is governed by rule-based decision-making, contrary to arbitrary adherence to administrative bodies. Consequently, any exertion of public authority must first adhere to the legal standards approved by the people who will be impacted by the exertion of that power, and according to this concept, arbitrators must be allowed to objectively understand and enforce laws under society’s goals to have the rule of law. By doing so, nations can be observed to see what circumstances favor their development, utilizing this as a preliminary step, and see how nations have formed judicial review.

Thus, in consideration of the issue of judicial review and whether it is a durable feature of the Constitution, a question inevitably arises about the extent to which judicial review is able to withstand legislation enacted by Parliament that may attempt to impose limitations on it in any way. Parliament’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law demonstrates a clear basis for the assumption that judicial review is questionably variable, and is vulnerable to any innovations or changes that Parliament may impose. The government’s response appears to contain issues that would potentially bring about some significant implications for the rule of law. It appeared that the government contemplated a report with a wide range of recommendations. The first of these recommendations was the codification of the grounds of judicial review, which could involve limiting them or possibly removing some of them together. The recommendations also visited the possibility of restricting justiciability and thus limiting the range of issues that courts are allowed to consider and further contemplated limiting the effective remedies, including by manipulating the concept of nullity. It also envisaged narrowing the scope of collateral challenge whereby unlawfully administered decisions could be indirectly questioned in criminal and private law proceedings. Further, the consideration of limiting the rules on standing to prevent certain parties from bringing judicial review claims was explored as well as the possibility of restricting rights of appeal. It can thus be seen in terms of the reference the government set that these proposals or recommendations would create a wide set of changes to the law of judicial review.

Overall, the IRAL’s report was very measured and balanced and the recommendations that it made were somewhat modest. The author of the report stated: “The government is undoubtedly entitled to legislate in relation to judicial review, and may well be justified in doing so in certain circumstances. None of the judges who provided submissions to us called this into question. Although there could be said to be an element of conventional law reform about some of our proposals, any decision to legislate more widely will essentially be a political one”. Thus, it appears that the IRAL was not attempting to question the possibility of deciding to reform or limit judicial review, but rather – whether or not that possibility is allowed to be exploited is ultimately a political decision.

In response to this notion, the government placed particular emphasis on the notion of parliamentary sovereignty and stated: “While the standard grounds of judicial review are default conditions that Parliament intends to apply to the exercise of any power, these are just defaults and Parliament is completely free to add to or remove from them in specific cases. For example, Parliament can add duties to consult, to give reasons, to conduct impact assessments, and to explicitly consider certain factors. But Parliament can also, explicitly or implicitly, take away from the defaults, i.e., create a body with plenary powers that are not subject to review on the ground that the decision is unreasonable or involved the taking into account irrelevant consideration”.

It is clear here that Parliament placed considerable emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty and on the facility this affords Parliament to remove requirements to abide by the standard that judicial review would normally apply. At the same time, the government’s comment on the rule of law states: “This is not to say, however, that the courts should not have a role in developing the application of the rule of law in judicial review – for instance in the interpretation of the statute, the courts will assume Parliament wishes decisionmakers not to act unreasonably and be amenable to review on a range of grounds emanating from the common law unless otherwise stated in the statute. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Parliament is the primary decision-maker here and the courts should ensure they remain, as Lady Hale put it, ‘the servant of Parliament’”.

This seems to ultimately state that while parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law are both considered important constitutional principles, ultimately, one is more important than the other. The emphasis appears to lie on the fact that Parliament is sovereign and is the primary decision maker and that the courts, therefore, are the servant of Parliament, and by implication, the court cannot refuse to adhere to what Parliament has said in legislation by relying on the rule of law or any other principles. This concept is not without fault and appears to place Parliament in a position where they are essentially capable of overriding anything that serves as an obstacle to its supremacy, including the rule of law and the key principles and foundation of judicial review that sprang from the rule of law.

Introduction

The rule of law is a fundamental principle that forms the backbone of a just and democratic society. It ensures that all individuals, regardless of their status or position, are subject to the same set of laws and are held accountable for their actions. In this narrative essay, I will share my personal understanding and experiences of what the rule of law means to me.

Body

Growing up in a small town, I witnessed firsthand the importance of the rule of law in maintaining order and justice within a community. I recall a specific incident that occurred when I was in high school. A local business owner, whom everyone knew, was caught engaging in fraudulent activities. The news spread like wildfire, and people were outraged. However, instead of resorting to vigilante justice, the community relied on the rule of law to address the situation.

The rule of law meant that the business owner would be afforded a fair trial, with evidence presented and a judge overseeing the proceedings. It meant that justice would be served through a legal process rather than through the emotions of the mob. Witnessing this event helped me understand that the rule of law provides a framework for resolving conflicts and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly and equally.

As I pursued my education and learned more about the legal system, I realized that the rule of law is not just about maintaining order, but also about safeguarding individual rights and liberties. It ensures that no one is above the law, including those in positions of power. This principle ensures that the rights of the vulnerable are protected and that justice prevails even in the face of adversity.

I recall a time when I attended a public protest advocating for a social cause close to my heart. We exercised our right to peacefully assemble and express our opinions. However, amidst the peaceful demonstration, a group of counter-protesters arrived, spreading hatred and trying to incite violence. In that moment, I witnessed the power of the rule of law in action.

Law enforcement officers, acting within the framework of the rule of law, stepped in to ensure that both sides could express their views without resorting to violence. They protected our right to peacefully protest while also ensuring the safety of all involved. It was a powerful reminder that the rule of law serves as a shield, protecting our freedoms and enabling us to exercise our rights without fear.

The rule of law also extends beyond individual rights and plays a crucial role in maintaining social cohesion and economic stability. When individuals and businesses can rely on a predictable and fair legal system, they are more likely to invest, innovate, and contribute to the overall well-being of society. The rule of law creates an environment of trust, allowing individuals and businesses to thrive and prosper.

Conclusion

In my journey of understanding the rule of law, I have come to appreciate its significance in upholding justice, protecting individual rights, and fostering social cohesion. It provides a framework for resolving disputes, maintaining order, and ensuring that no one is above the law. Through personal experiences and observations, I have witnessed the rule of law in action, reinforcing its importance in promoting a just and fair society.

The rule of law is not just a set of legal principles; it is a guiding force that shapes our interactions and ensures that justice prevails. It is a reminder that the law is not merely a tool for punishment, but a mechanism for safeguarding our rights, promoting equality, and upholding the values we hold dear. As I continue on my journey, I am committed to upholding the rule of law, both in my personal life and in society, knowing that it is the foundation of a just and equitable world.