Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Constitutional rights and principles - Coggle Diagram
Constitutional rights and principles
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
Its bedrocks
Separation of powers
Rule of law
Parliamentary sovereignty
DOCTRINE OF COMMON LAW CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Supreme Court describes the court's responsibility of upholding the values and principles of the constitution and making them effective
+
legal principles of the constitution aren't confined to statutory rules but include constitutional principles developed by the common law to protect individual rights
and regulate the conduct of public bodies and the relationship between them
Courts presume that gov ministers and Parliament
within the limits of parliamentary sovereignty -
act in conformity with fundamental rights
Common law and constitutional values
No definite list of common law constitutional rights and values -> unwritten, but are essentially
the rights and values protected by the rule of law
that have evolved as rules of fair play and justice
Include
Justice
Right of unimpeded access to the courts, open justice, access to legal advice and the right to legal professional privilege, procedural fariness
Legality
Fundamental rights - liberty, freedom of expression, and equality
Accountability to government
Democracy
LORD HOFFMANN in the case of the
Simms
raised the
question of prisoners' rights of freedom of speech and access to justice
Parliament is sovereign and can make laws which override fundamental rights
, but it
must do so in clear language
, not in general or ambiguous words
Generalised or amigos words in a statute will be interpreted by the courts in limited way
as the courts
are responsible for defending fundamental rights
Hoffmann's view ONLY
applies where an Act of Parliament overrides the rule of law or fundamental rights using general or ambiguous words
Principle of legality
Where a statute overrides common law rights and principles, it will be interpreted by the courts in a limited way unless words are very clear
- mentioned by Hoffmann in the
Simms
case
LORD REED - "not only that
Parliament cannot itself override fundamental rights or the rule of law
by general or ambiguous words, but also that it
cannot confer on another body, by general or ambiguous words, the power to do so
"
Important
because it
protects common law procedural safeguards and fundamental rights
, and shows the practical operation of the rule of law in courts
CRUCIAL:
Principle of legality
DOSEN'T
override Parliamentary sovereignty
PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY AND THE RULE OF LAW
The rule of law can never prevail against an express enactment of Parliament
Evans
case
Central issue of the case:
tension between the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty
Significant constitutional decision
which
highlights
that the
balance between the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, separation of powers, and the rule of law is a delicate one
Privacy International
case
LORD CARNWATH - for majority - Ultimately,
it is for the courts, not Parliament, to determine the limits set by the rule of law to ouster clauses
Judgement of the case illustrates the judicial thinking on the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty
LORD REED - dissenting - a
right to access to a judicial body to review the lawfulness of executive acts is an essential part of the rule of law, but the rule of law did not require a right of appeal or judicial review from such a body
PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
Evans
case
highlighted
the
importance of maintaining the dividing line between judicial interpretation and Parliament's role as a legislator
One view -> relationship between Parliament and the courts is
interactive based on a constitutional dialogue
Other view -> view of
sovereignty which is shared between Parliament and the judiciary
- aka BI-POLAR SOVEREIGNTY, where
Parliament
has
legislative sovereignty
and the
courts
have
enforcement sovereignty based on their interpretative function of statues
Traditional parliamentary sovereignty - FORSYTH -
cautions against seeing a statute as an empty vessel into which judges can pour a meaning
, and
emphasises
the
critical importance of judicial obedience to parliamentary supremacy
-> statute means what Parliament intended