Start Here – Judiciary and Civil Liberties

It is often argued that the UK does not have a formal Bill of Rights, much like the USA and other countries may have, however the rights of the people in Britain have been protected in other ways through existing statues, common law and case law. The rights of British citizens have a long history stemming from Magna Carta in 1215, the Habeas Corpus act in 1679, the Bill of Rights in 1689 and, more recently, the Human Rights Act in 1998. These rights include freedom of expression, freedom of protest, freedom from arbitrary arrest, political rights such as voting, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture, property rights, freedom of conscience and association in addition to a range of personal freedoms. Although all of these rights may be available to citizens in most cases, there have been numerous examples of such rights being violated in recent years. It is therefore imperative that you not only understand the rights guaranteed to you by the law, but also the mechanisms for protecting these rights, and how effective they are.

The main mechanism for protecting human rights and civil liberties is through the UK judiciary. The judiciary refers to the judicial branch and includes judges, magistrates and Supreme Court Justices who are responsible for the administration and application of justice. As the judiciary is the main mechanism for the protection of citizens’ rights, it is vital the judiciary remains both independent and neutral. Judicial independence ensures the judiciary are free of political control, from the government for example, so judges are able to rule without fears of the consequences and therefore ‘do the right thing’. It is also imperative that judges are neutral and operate on an impartial basis (i.e. without personal or political bias).

The judiciary in the UK faces a challenge in protecting rights and ensuring justice – there is no Bill of Rights or entrenched and codified constitution to which they can refer to judge whether a law or action has been unjust. The courts are instead restricted to simply ensuring the law has been appropriately applied, rather than challenging individual acts of parliament. However, the increasing use of the power of judicial review has led to a much greater political significance of the judiciary in respect to EU law, human rights, freedom of information and government restrictions on individual liberties since 9/11. Despite this increase in the power of judicial review, unlike the US Supreme Court, UK courts do not have the ability to declare acts of parliament unconstitutional. This is because all statute law acts as a supreme source of the UK constitution.

The UK judiciary do still have a variety of powers at their disposal including the ability to rule that something is ultra vires (literally translated to mean beyond one’s legal power or authority) where a minister or other official has acted beyond their authority. Courts are also able to issue a declaration of incompatibility – this is used where statute law or the actions of the government appear to violate the Human Rights Act. Judges are also able to suspend UK statute law where it appears to violate EU law, at least until the European Court of Justice can assess the case and make a final determination. How effective these judicial powers are is a key component of your study of the UK judiciary and you should therefore seek to keep up to date with recent cases and events in order to help you evaluate the effectiveness of the judiciary thoroughly.