‘In the UK there is a clear separation between the institutions which perform the executive, legislative, and judicial roles.’
Critically discuss this statement.
‘’The royal prerogative is not subject to adequate controls and should be abolished.’
Critically discuss this statement.
Section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 imposes a duty on courts to ‘take into account’ the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Critically discuss how this duty has been applied in practice.
‘As the practical route by which the rule of law is enforced judicial review is a great success story of the UK’s constitution. The process relies on the freedom of the judges to overturn decisions whenever they feel that government has acted wrongly; a freedom that must not be restricted.’
Do you agree with this statement? Explain and justify your answer, drawing on relevant case law and academic commentary.
QUESTIONS CONTINUE ON THE NEXT PAGE
The Criminal Deportation Act 2021 (a hypothetical statute) is enacted in order to enable the Home Secretary to deport non-UK citizens who have been found guilty of serious criminal offences in the UK. Section 2 gives the Home Secretary power ‘to deport any non-UK citizen the Home Secretary considers to be guilty of a serious criminal offence in the UK’. Section 3 provides that a person must be given a hearing before being deported at which ‘they may present reasons why they should be permitted to stay in this country’. Section 4 provides that ‘the decision made by the Home Secretary following a hearing is final’.
Sam is a non-UK citizen who is temporarily living in the UK. Following his conviction for unlawful parking he has received a letter from the Home Office informing him that because of his conviction the Home Secretary has decided to deport him under the provisions of the Criminal Deportation Act 2021. The letter goes on to say that he is entitled to a hearing, but because of the current Covid 19 situation the hearing will be in writing. Sam is very concerned about the deportation decision and upset that he will not have an oral hearing at which he would be able to call witnesses to support his arguments that he should be allowed to stay and that the parking conviction was not serious. Sam asks you whether he is entitled to an oral hearing.
Fred is also a non-UK citizen living in the UK. He has been convicted of fraud and has received a letter from the Home Office notifying him that he is to be deported and that he is entitled to a hearing in writing before a Home Office official. Fred submitted a very full written explanation as to why he should be able to stay in the country, together with supporting statements from leaders and members of his local faith community testifying to his good work for vulnerable people. Despite this, the decision to deport him has been confirmed. Fred feels that he has not been treated fairly. He is particularly upset having discovered that the Home Office official who conducted the hearing had been a member of his faith community until he left following a serious dispute with the community’s senior members. Fred asks you whether he can challenge the decision on the grounds that he has been treated unfairly.
Please advise, Sam and Fred on the matters they ask you about.
‘The obligations contained in the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement have priority over all other law, existing or future, including any inconsistent provisions in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 itself.’
Critically discuss the truth of this statement.