Rule of Law
The rule of law is one of the most fundamental principles of uk
No one is above the law, hostile to both anarchy and dictatorship
Political theory which lays dow requirements for law or as a procedural device which lays down
rules for those in power of how to rule under law
Law over man , fundamental primciple,
DM Walker defined rule of law in “the oxford companion to law” “concept of utmost importance,
but having no defined, nor readily definable content”
Lord Bridge in Bennett(1994) “ there is I think no principle more basic to any proper system of law
than the maintenance of rule of law itself
John Lock said “whenever law ends, tyranny begins.”
For some, it means that the executive or the government cannot exercise a power unless some law
authorizes it
In the words of AV Dicey we need a government of law not a government of men
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 by virtue of Section 1(1) expressly states that “nothing in this
act shall detract from the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law”
However, the act does not offer a clear definition of rule of law
Lord Thomas Bingham, the former Chief Justice defined the rule of law by breaking it up in 8 sub
rules
1. The law should be clear, accessible, intelligible and predictable
(a) Clarity-so that we may know what we might face a criminal penalty for and its imp can
be seen in Merker Island Shipping Corporation V Laughton (1983) Lord Donaldson MR
said that “absence of clarity is destructive of the rule of law : it is unfair to those who
wish to preserve the rule of law, it encourages those who wish to undermine it.
(b) so we can claim our rights and understand our obligations
(c) because successful conduct of trade and commerce depends on accessible rules (ow the
govt has introduced websites to enhance public accessibility)
(d) predictability- it is very important as the people should kow what laws to expect and
what act ca be criminally liable. In a dictatorship there is no predictability. In uk there is
predictability which was increased by article 7 of ECHR which said that legislation
should ot be done retrospectively this was supported Inn the cases R V Remington, R V
Goldstein (2006). Before this in Burma Oil V Lord Advocate(1965) parliament legislated
retrospectively by introducing War Damage Act 1965
, 2. Questions of liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the
exercise of discretion
(a) “if anyone -you or I – is to be penalized it must not be for breaking some rule dreamt up
by an ingenious minister or official in order to convict us. It must be for a proven breach
of the established law of the land.” – Thomas Bingham.
3. The laws of lad should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences
require differentiation
a) It provides justification for the application of law differently e.g. Criminal law children
and those without mental capacity are treated differently in terms of procedures for
investigation and trial as well in sentencing. Children under 10 are treated as
doliincapax- legally incapable of committing a crime
4. Ministers and public officers at all levels musty exercise the powers conferred upon them in
good faith, without exceeding the limits of powers and not unreasonably
a) The remedy of judicial review is available to challenge the actions of ministers and other
public bodies where they have acted outside the powers they have been given. The
grounds for judicial review were stated inn Council of Civil Service Union V The minister
for the civil services (1984), which were illegality, irrationality, and procedural
impropriety.
b) Lord Hoffman “I see no reason why prerogative legislation should not be subject to
review on ordinary principles of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety in the
same way as any other executive action
c) Courts ability to review decisions of public authorities can also be see in R V Somerset
county council ex parte Fewings and others, wherein the court quashed the ban
imposed by Somerset CC on deer hunting in a particular area for ethical reasons.
Molone V UK (1984), Everett (1989), Ruddock (1987), Bentley (1994) and Ahmed and
others (1998)
d) Section 6(1) of HRA 1998 has provided a new ground for judicial review
5. Means must be provided for resolving without prohibitive cost or undue delay, bona fide
civil disputes which the parties are unable to resolve
a) In R V Lord Chancellor, ex Parte Witham (1998) an applicant in receipt of state benefits
successfully challenged, by way of judicial review, a order made by the Lord Chancellor
to increase the cost of claim forms, Laws LJ stated: “Access to courts is a constitutional
right; it can only be denied by the govt if it persuades the parliament to pass legislation
which specifically in effect express provision permits the executive to turn people away
from the court door. That has not been done in this case.”
The rule of law is one of the most fundamental principles of uk
No one is above the law, hostile to both anarchy and dictatorship
Political theory which lays dow requirements for law or as a procedural device which lays down
rules for those in power of how to rule under law
Law over man , fundamental primciple,
DM Walker defined rule of law in “the oxford companion to law” “concept of utmost importance,
but having no defined, nor readily definable content”
Lord Bridge in Bennett(1994) “ there is I think no principle more basic to any proper system of law
than the maintenance of rule of law itself
John Lock said “whenever law ends, tyranny begins.”
For some, it means that the executive or the government cannot exercise a power unless some law
authorizes it
In the words of AV Dicey we need a government of law not a government of men
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 by virtue of Section 1(1) expressly states that “nothing in this
act shall detract from the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law”
However, the act does not offer a clear definition of rule of law
Lord Thomas Bingham, the former Chief Justice defined the rule of law by breaking it up in 8 sub
rules
1. The law should be clear, accessible, intelligible and predictable
(a) Clarity-so that we may know what we might face a criminal penalty for and its imp can
be seen in Merker Island Shipping Corporation V Laughton (1983) Lord Donaldson MR
said that “absence of clarity is destructive of the rule of law : it is unfair to those who
wish to preserve the rule of law, it encourages those who wish to undermine it.
(b) so we can claim our rights and understand our obligations
(c) because successful conduct of trade and commerce depends on accessible rules (ow the
govt has introduced websites to enhance public accessibility)
(d) predictability- it is very important as the people should kow what laws to expect and
what act ca be criminally liable. In a dictatorship there is no predictability. In uk there is
predictability which was increased by article 7 of ECHR which said that legislation
should ot be done retrospectively this was supported Inn the cases R V Remington, R V
Goldstein (2006). Before this in Burma Oil V Lord Advocate(1965) parliament legislated
retrospectively by introducing War Damage Act 1965
, 2. Questions of liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the
exercise of discretion
(a) “if anyone -you or I – is to be penalized it must not be for breaking some rule dreamt up
by an ingenious minister or official in order to convict us. It must be for a proven breach
of the established law of the land.” – Thomas Bingham.
3. The laws of lad should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences
require differentiation
a) It provides justification for the application of law differently e.g. Criminal law children
and those without mental capacity are treated differently in terms of procedures for
investigation and trial as well in sentencing. Children under 10 are treated as
doliincapax- legally incapable of committing a crime
4. Ministers and public officers at all levels musty exercise the powers conferred upon them in
good faith, without exceeding the limits of powers and not unreasonably
a) The remedy of judicial review is available to challenge the actions of ministers and other
public bodies where they have acted outside the powers they have been given. The
grounds for judicial review were stated inn Council of Civil Service Union V The minister
for the civil services (1984), which were illegality, irrationality, and procedural
impropriety.
b) Lord Hoffman “I see no reason why prerogative legislation should not be subject to
review on ordinary principles of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety in the
same way as any other executive action
c) Courts ability to review decisions of public authorities can also be see in R V Somerset
county council ex parte Fewings and others, wherein the court quashed the ban
imposed by Somerset CC on deer hunting in a particular area for ethical reasons.
Molone V UK (1984), Everett (1989), Ruddock (1987), Bentley (1994) and Ahmed and
others (1998)
d) Section 6(1) of HRA 1998 has provided a new ground for judicial review
5. Means must be provided for resolving without prohibitive cost or undue delay, bona fide
civil disputes which the parties are unable to resolve
a) In R V Lord Chancellor, ex Parte Witham (1998) an applicant in receipt of state benefits
successfully challenged, by way of judicial review, a order made by the Lord Chancellor
to increase the cost of claim forms, Laws LJ stated: “Access to courts is a constitutional
right; it can only be denied by the govt if it persuades the parliament to pass legislation
which specifically in effect express provision permits the executive to turn people away
from the court door. That has not been done in this case.”
