How Effectively Can the Judiciary Protect Individuals from Erosions of Civil Liberties in the Uk?
How effectively can the Judiciary protect individuals from erosions of civil liberties in the UK?
One of the major functions of the judiciary in a modern, liberal democracy is to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens against the state or other organisations. It is the aim of this essay to expose the effective points which include: The 2009 Foundation of the Supreme Court; Human Rights Act; and Judicial rule over the government. On the other side of why it is not effective I plan to counter my previous points as well exposing different examples and explain how Parliament is sovereign.
My first point is on the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), which is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. They help the judiciary decide and protect individuals from civil liberties erosions. For example recently there was a deadline for the government to comply with ECHR judgments on prisoner votes. There was a draft bill on the enfranchisement of prisoners. But instead of supporting a minimal change to the law, the government is hiding behind the parliament which is hostile to the idea of giving any additional prisoners the vote. The consequences of doing this extend far beyond Westminster. Prisoner enfranchisement can be made conditional on the nature or gravity of the offence, the ECHR has said; it is for the national authorities to decide. This is an attempt to protect individuals from civil liberties getting eroded.
Another point to reinforce the effectiveness of the Judiciary is the fact that the Human rights act directly gives the judiciary power to protect individual rights .The judiciary can also declare an act of Parliament incompatible with European Convention and Parliament may amend legislation, this is exactly what happened 2004 with the overturning of the anti-terrorism act 2001 There are two examples to prove this point. My first is Abu Qatada, even though we disagree, he was protected by the Human
One of the major functions of the judiciary in a modern, liberal democracy is to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens against the state or other organisations. It is the aim of this essay to expose the effective points which include: The 2009 Foundation of the Supreme Court; Human Rights Act; and Judicial rule over the government. On the other side of why it is not effective I plan to counter my previous points as well exposing different examples and explain how Parliament is sovereign.
My first point is on the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), which is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. They help the judiciary decide and protect individuals from civil liberties erosions. For example recently there was a deadline for the government to comply with ECHR judgments on prisoner votes. There was a draft bill on the enfranchisement of prisoners. But instead of supporting a minimal change to the law, the government is hiding behind the parliament which is hostile to the idea of giving any additional prisoners the vote. The consequences of doing this extend far beyond Westminster. Prisoner enfranchisement can be made conditional on the nature or gravity of the offence, the ECHR has said; it is for the national authorities to decide. This is an attempt to protect individuals from civil liberties getting eroded.
Another point to reinforce the effectiveness of the Judiciary is the fact that the Human rights act directly gives the judiciary power to protect individual rights .The judiciary can also declare an act of Parliament incompatible with European Convention and Parliament may amend legislation, this is exactly what happened 2004 with the overturning of the anti-terrorism act 2001 There are two examples to prove this point. My first is Abu Qatada, even though we disagree, he was protected by the Human