No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
In the search for democracy, are judges allies or subversives? Until very recently, British constitutional law appeared to present a relatively straightforward answer to this perennial dilemma: judges are only allies if their power is clearly subordinate to that of Parliament. In terms of constitutional theory, this faith in the political process and corresponding distrust of the judiciary is expressed through the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. However, the imminent enactment of a Human Rights Act in Britain compels a reconsideration of this response. It is true that the judiciary has always played a significant role in law-making through the common law and statutory interpretation. It is true, too, that non-constitutional judicial review has developed vigorously in the past few decades. Yet it has always been possible to assert, not least by the judiciary, that law-making of this sort is subordinate to parliamentary law-making and is justifiable by and legitimated in terms of parliamentary intent. Parliamentary sovereignty has, of course, been challenged explicitly by membership of the European Union. Faced with the confident assertion by European Community institutions of the sovereignty of European Community law, the judiciary has gradually shifted its allegiance from Parliament and acknowledged the supremacy of EC law in its sphere of operation. This shift of allegiance is revolutionary in one way. Nevertheless, judicial law-making remains subordinate, although to a differently constituted legislature.
Reader in Law, Oxford University. I am indebted to Andrew Ashworth, Paul Craig and Keith Ewing for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
1 Dicey, A.V., The Law of the Constitution (London, 9th ed., 1950) 39.Google Scholar
2 Dicey, supra n. 1, at 70.
3 Ibid., at 40.
4 Ibid., at 60.
5 Ibid., at 76–77.
6 Ibid., at 79.
7 Ibid., at 80.
8 Ibid., at 83.
9 Bonham's Case (1610) Co. Rep. 113b.
10 See, for example, his opposition to votes for women: A.V. Dicey “Letter to a Friend Concerning Votes for Women”.
11 See Waldron, J., “A Rights-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights” (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 R v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Nottinghamshire CC [1986] AC 240, at 265.
13 The apparent success of the European Communities Act, 1972 in overcoming the doctrine that later statutes impliedly repeal early ones has undermined this principle to an extent. The principle remains intact for express repeal of earlier statutes.
14 Dicey, supra n. 1, at 197–199.
15 [1990] 1 AC 109 at 283. See also Derbyshire CC v. Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 3 WLR 28.
16 See, in particular, Craig, P.P., Public Law and Democracy (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990) 33ff.Google Scholar
17 Adonis, A., Parliament Today (Manchester University Press, 2nd ed., 1993) 29–31.Google Scholar
18 Bodganor, V., Power and the People (1997) 20.Google Scholar
19 Daintith, T., “The Executive Power Today: Bargaining and Economic Control”, in Jowell, J. and Oliver, D., eds., The Changing Constitution (1989) 193–194.Google Scholar
20 Federalist, Papers No. 39.
21 Federalist, Papers No. 51.
22 Wolff, R.P., “Beyond Tolerance”, in Wolff, R.P., Moore, B. and Marcuse, H., A Critique of Pure Tolerance (Beacon, 1965) 16.Google Scholar
23 See Craig, supra n. 16, at chaps. 3–6; Wolff, supra n. 22.
24 See R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 All ER 244 (HL).
25 Local Government Act, 1988, sec. 28.
26 See Fredman, S., “The New Rights: Labour Law and Ideology in the Thatcher Years” (1992) 12 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Levitas, R., ed., The Ideology of the New Right (Polity Press, 1986).Google Scholar
27 Ewing, K.D., “The Bill of Rights Debate”, in Ewing, K.D., Gearty, C.A. and Hepple, B.A., eds., Human Rights and Labour Law (Mansell, 1994) 147–187.Google Scholar
28 Waldron, supra n. 11, at 20.
29 See Browne-Wilkinson, Lord, “The Infiltration of a Bill of Rights”, (1992) Public Law 397.Google Scholar
30 Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL).
31 Re Racal Communications Ltd [1981] AC 374 (HL); Page v. Hull University Visitor (1993) 1 All ER 97 (HL).
32 Bromley LBC v. Greater London Council [1983] 1 AC 768.
33 [1985] AC 1054 CA.
34 Race Relations Act, 1976, sec. 71.
35 [1985] AC 1054 CA, at 1065.
36 [1971] AC 632.
37 [1991] 1 All ER, at 723.
38 R v. Ministry of Defence ex p Smith [1995] 4 All ER 427, at 447.
39 R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514 (HL) and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department exp Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 (HL).
40 R v. Ministry of Defence ex p Smith [1996] 2 WLR 305 CA, at 336, 339.
41 Lord Irvine of Lairg, “Judges and Decision-Makers: The Theory and Practice of Wednesbury Review”, (1996) Public Law 59, at 77.Google Scholar
42 Ibid., at 76–78.
43 “Whenever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning should be preferred to any other meaning”: New Zealand Bill of Rights, sec. 6.
44 Taggart, M., “Tugging on Superman's Cape”, (1998) Public Law 266, at 284.Google Scholar
45 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990, sec. 7.
46 Human Rights Act, 1998, sec. 19.
47 Irvine, Lord, “The Development of Human Rights in Britain”, (1998) Public Law 221, at 227.Google Scholar
48 Human Rights Act, 1998, sec. 3.
49 And a fortiori, in cases in which Parliament has decided to legislate despite a certificate of incompatibility.
50 Human Rights Act 1998, sec. 4.
51 Ibid., sec. 10.
52 Ibid., sec. 12, and schedule 2.
53 Ibid., sec. 6.
54 Ibid., sec. 1, and schedule 1.
55 As well as its decisions, declarations, and advisory opinions, the opinions and decisions of the Commission, and decisions of the committee of Ministers: Human Rights Act, sec. 2.
56 [1998] PL, at 232.
57 Human Rights Act, sec. 4(5).
58 Ibid., sec. 6.
59 [1998] PL, at 232.
60 Constitution of the French Republic of 4 October 1958, Title VII, Art. 56.
61 Basic Law of Germany, Art. 94.
62 Art. III, US Constitution, and see Federalist 78.
63 Human Rights Act, sec. 5.
64 Note that from November 1998, the Commission and Court are to be fused into a single permanent Court (Protocol No. 11, ratified by all Contracting States).
65 Human Rights Act, sec. 7(1).
66 R v. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ex p World Development Movement [1995] 1 All ER 611.
67 ECHR, Art. 33.
68 Although there is likely to be substantial litigation concerning the powers allocated to the Scottish Parliament.
69 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223.
70 Brind v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1991) 1 All ER 720 (HL).
71 Education Secretary v. Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014.
72 Bromley LBC v. Greater London Council, supra n. 32.
73 Ibid., at 448.
74 R v. Ministry of Defence ex p Smith [1996] 2 WLR 305 CA at 340.
75 Brind v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1991] AC 696.
76 Dworkin, R., A Bill of Rights for Britain (1988) 9–10.Google Scholar
77 [1981] IRLR 408.
77a Human Rights Act, secs. 12 and 13.
78 Smith, supra n. 74, at 345.
79 Irvine, supra n. 47, at 229.
80 Irvine, supra n. 41, at 78.
81 Dworkin, R.M., A Matter of Principle (1985) 191.Google Scholar
82 Ibid.
83 Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain (Clarendon, 1994) 116–117.Google Scholar
84 Art. 6, Irish Constitution.
85 J. Waldron, “A Right-Based Critique of Constitutional Rights”, supra n. 11, at 48.
86 SirLaws, John, “Is the High Court the Guardian of Fundamental Constitutional Rights”, (1993) Public Law 59 Google Scholar; “Law and Democracy”, (1995) Public Law 72; “The Constitution: Morals and Rights”, (1996) Public Law 622.
87 Chief Constable of N Wales v. Evans [1982] 3 All ER 141.
88 Janis, M., Kay, R. and Bradley, A., European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials (Oxford, 1995) 376.Google Scholar
89 Feldbrugge v. The Netherlands (No 99) 8 EHRR 425 ECHR; Tre Traktorer Aktielbolaga v. Sweden, Judgment of 7 July 1989, (No 159) 13 EHRR 399.
90 Bell v. Bursou 402 US 535 (1971); Goss v. Lopez 419 US 565 (1975); Perry v. Sindermann 408 US 593 (1972); Goldberg v. Kelly 397 US 254 (1970).
91 Douglas and Stewart JJ in Furman v. Georgia 408 US 238 (1972); Stewart, Powell and Stevens JJ in Gregg v. Georgia 428 US 153 (1976); see also Lockett v. Ohio 438 US 973 (1978).
92 For example Brennen J in Furman v. Georgia, supra n. 91; and Gregg v. Georgia, supra n. 91.
93 Bruce Edwin Calins v. James A Collins 510 US 1141 (1994).
94 Race Relations Act, 1976, sec. 48; Sex Discrimination Act, 1975, sec. 57.
95 R v. Hillingdon London Borough Council ex p Commission for Racial Equality [1982] QB 276, at 287.
96 Ely, J.H., Democracy and Distrust (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1980) 103, 106, 120.Google Scholar
97 Ibid., at 131–135.
98 Social Security Act, 1986, sec. 33(10A).
99 Feldman, D., “The Constitution and the Social Fund: A Novel Form of Legislation”, (1991) LQR 39.Google Scholar
100 R v. Secretary of State for Social Services ex p Stitt The Times, 5 July 1990, CA.
101 Feldman, supra n. 99, at 45.
102 R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 All ER 244 (HL).
103 Ibid., at 252.
104 Ibid., at 247; see also Lord Mustill, at 261.
105 See Lord Lloyd, at 272.
106 Contra Ewing, supra n. 27, at 165.
107 Craig, supra n. 16, at 97–98; Ewing, supra n. 27, at 164.
108 Kommers, Donald P., “German Constitutionalism: A Prolegomenon”, (1991) 40 Emory L.J. 837.Google Scholar
109 Ibid.
110 Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark 1 EHRR 711 para 53.
111 See Arts. 8(2), 9(2), 10(2) and 11(2).
112 Art. 3 of Protocol 1.
113 Ewing, K., “Human Rights, Social Democracy and Constitutional Reform”, in Gearty, C. and Tomkins, A., ed., Understanding Human Rights (1996) 40–59.Google Scholar
114 Bowman v. United Kingdom (1998) ECHR Reports of Judgments and Decisions.
115 Sedley, S., “Human Rights: A Twenty-First Century Agenda”, (1995) Public Law 386, at 393.Google Scholar
116 Canadian Charter of Rights, sec. 15(2).
117 Sedley, supra n. 115, at 399.
118 Ewing, supra n. 113, at 47.
119 Buckley v. Valeo 424 US 1 (1976).
120 [1993] 3 S.C.R. 697.
121 Criminal Code of Canada, sec. 319(2).
122 Charter, sec. 27.
123 Sedley, supra n. 115, at 398.