Politic's essay

Cześć ;)

 

Dzisiaj wyjątkowo zmęczony nadchodzącymi egzaminami i bieżącymi testami próbnymi wpadłem na pomysł wrzucenia następnego przykładowego eseju, tym razem z Polityki ;) Jest on na A, także widocznie (według Mr. Higginsa) jest co czytać xd

 

Jest to nieco inny rodzaj eseju, więc polecam się wczytać. Tak czy inaczej, każdy przedmiot i każdy rodzaj esejów ma swoje charakterystyki :)

 

Nie otrzymałem żadnych nowych pytań, więc jak macie jakieś to się nie krępujcie tylko pytajcie ;)

To what extent can, and should judges control the power of government? (40)

 

Judges are very important in the UK, because they control the law and make sure that no one is treated in an offensive way. Government is also controlled especially by the Supreme Court, established by the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 and working since 2009. Senior judges control government in several ways. They check whether the institutions do not exceed its powers, they interpret statue law and defend people, who feel treated in a wrong way by the state’s institutions. However, many claim that judges have too much authority above government, because they are not elected and government is sovereign, since is the part of Parliament. Because of that it is right to say that judges can control government very effectively, but should not have more authority than they have already.

Judges are very effective in checking whether government does not exceed its power. The power's exceeds of government are known as “ultra vires”. The judiciary checks government’s actions and tries to determine whether government works beyond its legal power. If it works, then judges can pass laws which restrict the power of government. For instance, suspected terrorist bank assets case in 2010 ruled that government had no legal power to freeze bank assets of suspected terrorists. It showed that government acted “ultra vires” and restricted government’s anti-terrorist policy. However, government can still act above rulings of the judiciary, because there is no separation of power in the UK, so government as an integral part of legislature (Parliament) still remains sovereign and can ruled against the judiciary. Some can argue that the judiciary can work under the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a fundamental to the most of decisions of the Supreme Court. This act brought the UK into the ruling of the European Convention of Human Rights, which tries to protect the rights of all the citizens from the EU. There is growth in using the Human Rights Act in the practice by judges, who can easily use it to control the power of government. However, the decisions of the judiciary are not binding on government and they can overrule judges. Nevertheless, it is not likely that government overrules this act, because of their accountability to people, who can simply not choose them during the next election. In this way, judges are very effective in checking “ultra vires” cases of government, because they work for people, who elect government and to whom government is accountable.

The next way of controlling government is that judges interpret statue law, law which is passed by Parliament and initiated mostly by government since government has a majority in Parliament. Judges can interpret the law not in favour of government and by this way they can control its power. However, the lack of entrenched constitution makes it difficult, because government can amend constitution in a very simple way by passing another law through Parliament, which can reject the voice of judges. Nevertheless, judges still have the right to interpret this statue and they can claim that government act beyond its legal power – ultra vires. Through that, government can be easily checked by the judges.

The last important way by which the judges can control government is judicial review, which is held when a person or institution want to challenge the decision of government. Judges can hold it, when a decision offenses the Human Rights Act, common law, or whether the decision was not “ultra vires”. For instance, Belmarsh case in 2004, in which judges ruled that government and any other institution cannot imprison suspected terrorists without a trial, showed that judges can be very effective in challenging the policy of government. Judicial review’s decisions are usually accepted by government. However, government still remains sovereign and in some instances can simply ignore the ruling of the judges. Nevertheless, increasing number of judicial review cases shows that judges are very effective in checking government’s power.

Even if judges are effective in controlling government’s power it is right to say that they should not exceeds its authority above government, because of two issues. Firstly judges are appointed not elected, which means that they are not accountable to people as government is. Because of that it can be said that they have no legal power to control government, which was elected by the citizens. Some can argue that because they are not elected they are not interested in politics, but simply do their work in order to keep order in the society. By arguing in this way judges can be allowed to control government. Nevertheless, if people choose some people to represent them, they are responsible for decisions of government and judges should only obstruct legislation and decisions which can offence the civil rights and liberties.

Secondly, as it was mentioned above, government is a part of Parliament so it remains sovereign and it can easily overrule decisions of the judiciary. In this case it looks like as judges waste their time on doing something that is not important, because can be overruled. The only possibility to change that is introducing an entrench constitution which can restrict government’s and Parliament’s power and give judges possibility to check government’s power more effectively. Also, entrenched constitution would lead to greater separation of power in the UK and make control of power by the judiciary more effective, as it is seen in the USA, where the executive is elected separately from legislature and because of that each branch of power can easily check others. However, until now the UK does not possess an entrenched constitution and therefore the judiciary should not have more power as it has now, because of government, which is elected by the people and accountable to them.

Overall, judges are very effective in checking government’s power, because they can use their power to rule against “ultra vires” of government, they interpret statue law and they do not have to interpret it in favour of government. They can also hold judicial review in order to ensure that the citizens can challenge the decisions of government. However, the judiciary should not involve more in the process of checking government’s power because judges are not elected and cannot rule against government which is elected by the people, accountable to them and should rule in order to improve their lives. What is more, government as taken from Parliament is still sovereign and can rule against the judges.

 

 

 

Wszelkie prawa autorskie zastrzeżone i prawnie chronione. Kopiowanie materiałów w części lub w całości możliwy tylko za zgodą autora. Cytowanie oraz wykorzystywanie fragmentów dozwolone tylko za podaniem źródła. Copyright by Wojciech Zych