Every court in the United Kingdom is required to interpret and apply the law in a manner that is as near to the Human Rights Act as feasible. This is a requirement for all matters that courts handle. This covers both cases between people and cases against governmental authorities. The human rights outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights are put into practice via the Human Rights Act of 1998. According to the Human Rights Act, all UK courts are required to apply the law in a way that, to the greatest extent feasible, respects your human rights.
The role of the judiciary in safeguarding rights
Judicial independence is a guarantee given to a fair trial and a condition required in the rule of law. Consequently, a judge is obliged to honor and demonstrate judicial independence in institutional and personal aspects. For the judicial office to be properly performed, impartiality is necessary. It applies not only to the choice itself but also to the method used to make it.
For the judicial office to be properly carried out, integrity is necessary. Propriety, or the appearance of it, is necessary for the judge to carry out all of their duties. To properly carry out the duties of the judicial office, everyone must be treated equally before the courts. To properly
To carry out judicial duties, one must be competent and diligent.
The public and persons who appear before judges must have faith that their cases will be decided in line with the law in a democracy. To achieve this, judges and the judiciary in general should not be dependent on each other or on external factors. The ruling of the judges must be on the basis of the facts that are relevant and the law to serve the constitutional obligation to deliver justice that is fair and impartial. The judges should not be influenced by any vested interest in the execution of their judicial mandate, and there should not be pressure from the politicians, the media, business interests, individual litigants, or their self-interest.
The UK legal framework for protecting citizens’ rights
As governmental functions have expanded over the past century, so too have the duties of judges in conflicts between citizens and the state. The requirement for the court to be independent of the government has grown along with its duty to defend citizens against illegal government actions. A high-profile case, in which the media takes a particular interest, brought before the court is a practical example of the importance of judicial independence. When the court hears a high-profile case that commands a good share of media attention, it provides a real-life demonstration of how judicial independence can be of value. This may be a criminal trial for someone suspected of a horrifying murder, a celebrity’s divorce, or a challenge to the legitimacy of a government policy, such as the provision of a new, costly medication to NHS patients. Judges may avoid involvement with political parties or recuse themselves from cases where they have close family ties to litigants to maintain impartiality.
Judicial: Holding government accountable
Holding the government responsible is one of the primary goals of judicial review. In the context of judicial review, accountability refers to the process of inspecting, controlling, or regulating the government to hold it accountable in light of administrative law principles. Public decision makers may be held accountable through a variety of legal channels, including tort and contract actions, as well as non-legal ways. Judicial review, however, is the primary legal tool for keeping the government responsible. Parliament plays a distinct function in serving as a check on the government than do the courts.
Individuals or organizations impacted by the use of state authority can start judicial review in the administrative court; the courts uphold the rule of law by making sure public entities don’t act beyond their bounds. The courts ensure that public entities behave in a reasonable, proportionate, and logical manner. Additionally, the court makes sure that the public body has followed natural justice principles. The court examines the state’s procedure to make sure that the fairness and integrity of the process have been followed. Lastly, the courts will demand that the executive branch’s actions respect the liberties and rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR].
The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) came into operation on October 2, 2000. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was founded based on the ECHR. The ECtHR, based in Strasbourg, France, is tasked with ensuring that the members that are signatories to the ECHR respect their rights and protections as stipulated in the ECHR. It accomplishes this by looking into complaints that people or states have filed. The ECtHR has the authority to issue binding rulings on pertinent nations if it determines that an applicant’s human rights have been violated. According to the then-Labour administration, which launched the Human Rights Bill in 1997, one of the main goals of the HRA was to “bring rights home” and give UK residents the ability to pursue claims of ECHR rights violations before UK courts.
Landmark cases defining citizens’ rights
Although the goal of the law is to uphold justice, it is subject to change. Court cases that question anticipated results and result in legislative changes are considered landmark cases. The 2004 Belmarsh ruling was a significant judicial case. The decision of any court case would have significant ramifications in a conflict between civil liberties and national security. Human rights took precedence over the law in this instance, since the authority to hold terror suspects forever without charge was rejected. The first conviction to be reversed by the Court of Criminal Appeal was William Herbert Wallace’s 1931 murder conviction. In subsequent court instances where someone was wrongfully accused and found not guilty, it cleared the path.
Under the HRA, the police’s 2003 decision to block a coach of protesters from entering an anti-war demonstration was contested. In order to avoid a breach of the peace at the demonstration when the passengers arrived, the police opted to send the coaches home with a police escort even though they determined that one was not imminent. The court ruled that the police could not interfere more than seemed required to stop the disturbance. The police had not fulfilled their need to demonstrate that their actions were reasonable and the least amount of interference with the rights to free speech (Article 10) and peaceful assembly (Article 11).
Challenges and limitations of judicial protection
An important authority for making public officials answerable for their choices is judicial scrutiny. It allows the courts to determine whether such rulings are in accordance with the law and proper protocols. Tough rules, though, limit its use and define when and how it may be applied. Although judicial reviews are essential in keeping the public bodies in check, they are narrow and impractical. These limits influence its functioning and to whom it is accessible, and thereby it is a process that is geared towards legality and not governance. The limitations include:
1. Focus on process, not merits
A Judicial review is keenly limited to the legality of this decision and not its content. Courts consider the issue of whether a decision was made justly, legally, and on the basis of the authority of the decision-maker. They, however, do not replace their judgment with that of the public body. This restriction assures the judicial review of the line between the judicial and the executive, and how courts should not interfere with the policy-making process.
But it also implies that even when a choice results in a major wrongdoing, provided that it is done within the right legal procedure, the courts have nothing to do. Such emphasis on procedure may irritate those who wish to have decisions that appear to be unfair, redressed.
2. Restrictions on scope
Judicial review applies only to decisions made by public authorities or organisations performing public functions. Decisions by private entities, even if they have a significant public impact, are excluded from the review.
Although such a distinction is required between the spheres of law, which are public and private, there are instances where it does not allow individuals to pursue remedies against private organisations exercising a great influence.
3. Procedural constraints
Procedural rules create additional barriers for those seeking judicial review. These include:
- Time Limits: Claims must be filed promptly. For general cases, the timeframe is three months, while planning and procurement cases have stricter deadlines of six weeks and 30 days, respectively.
- Permission Stage: Claimants must secure the court’s permission to proceed by showing they have a prima facie case and sufficient interest in the matter. This step will sieve out weak or unmeritorious claims, but may also put off a valid objection.
- The oral hearings are a major barrier due to high legal expenditures and court fees to submit cases to a court. The lack of access to legal assistance further tends to complicate this problem, providing an obstacle to justice among people who are less fortunate.
4. Government reforms
Recent government reforms have further narrowed the scope of judicial review. These changes include limiting oral hearings for claims deemed “totally without merit”. This restricts access to the courts, even when claimants believe their case deserves a full hearing.
5. Separation of powers
The judicial review is established to ensure the separation of powers between the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive. Courts’ only concentration is on procedural propriety and on the legality of the decision. They neither judge the quality of government decisions nor propose other policies.
This restriction protects the independence of the judiciary and avoids interference in political affairs. But it also limits the capacity of judicial review to go more fundamentally to consider questions of fairness or policy effect.
6. Exclusions for certain powers
There are specific aspects of decision-making, not subject to judicial review:
- Royal Prerogative Powers: Prerogative powers like the prorogation of Parliament are not normally subject to the courts’ jurisdiction and are normally not restricted by law or judicial decision.
- Specialised Tribunals: there are specialised tribunals that apply to certain issues, and they are not bound by a court of law but have exclusive jurisdiction. This also limits the area of judicial review in these spheres.
- Such restrictions prevent the violation of the constitutional role of courts. Nevertheless, they also show the points where the access to justice might be limited, and the questions of accountability and fairness are brought up in this or that situation.
