The Rule of Law

The Rule of Law

The United Kingdomis generally regarded as a country that has a

tradition of respect for the rule of law. In general terms this means

that there is a historical tradition of public bodies providing a

specific legal justification for their actions, and of the courts

adjudicating impartially on disputes between citizens and on disputes

between citizens and the state. Furthermore this also means that those

in power will abide by the rulings of the courts. However adherence to

the rule of law does not mean that public authorities do not act

illegally. The central issue is that such unlawfulness is identified

and remedied.

Many societies that today expound the virtues of the doctrine of the

rule of law will in fact have their origins in criminality and

revolution. The history of the USA is an example on this point. The

concept of the rule of law has been recognised since at least the 4th

century BC when Aristotle expressed the view that the rule of law was

preferable to that of any individual. His view was that those in power

should be subject to some sort of 'higher' law and should govern in

accordance with that law. Writing in the Victorian era Professor A V

Dicey in his work The Law of the Constitution stated that the rule of

law was one of the main features of the constitution of the United

Kingdom and that, in this context, the phrase embraced at least three

distinct though kindred concepts.

In his 1st theory Dicey was asserting that, in those societies where

the rule of law obtains, the law does not give those in authority

wide, discretionary powers to interfere with the personal freedom or

property of the...

... middle of paper ...

...he seizure of his books and papers, but since the warrant

didn't specify any particular offence, these actions were not

authorised by Common Law or statute, and therefore were unlawful. In

the case of Ghani v Jones (1970) the plaintiff's passport was taken

away from him when his wife disappeared under suspicious

circumstances. It was held that the police had no grounds to retain a

person's passport unless they had grounds for arresting him. These two

cases demonstrate how the rule of law operates so as to ensure that

officials are not able to wield powers not granted to them by law and

that the rights of the individual, as are allowed to him by the law,

are protected. Having the above in mind one could definitely reach to

the conclusion that to a great extent the rule of law operates as to

safeguard individual liberty.