The United Kingdoms Constitution: Protection for the Right to Protest in the Streets - Essay Example

The United Kingdom’s Constitution: Protection for the Right to Protest in the Streets Parliamentary sovereignty is the foremost principle of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The constitution makes Parliament the ultimate legal authority all over UK, giving it the ultimate authority of creating as well as ending any previously passed laws. The courts are under an obligation to follow the Parliament’s Acts and cannot overrule legislation passed by the parliament and no Parliament can pass a law that the future Parliament of the country cannot change. The sovereignty of the parliament is the most essential part of the constitution of the United Kingdom[www13]. Over time, Parliament has passed several laws limiting the application of the sovereignty of the parliament. These laws are a reflection of the political developments within UK as well as outside of it. These laws include the transference of power to different bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the Human Rights Act 1998 as well as UK’s entry to the European Union in 1972 and the decision establishing the Supreme Court in 2009 which ended the House of Lords role as UK's final court of appeal are all such developments in law that limit parliamentary sovereignty[www13]. All these measures and laws do not necessarily destabilize the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This statement is based on the fact that the parliament can still at least in theory repeal any of the laws that implement these changes[www13]. However, since UK became a signatory to the convention, it was held in to R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Brind 1991 that Parliament must enact laws that are in conformity with the Convention and an Act of Parliament must be interpreted or construed in line with the Convention. The Human Rights Act 1998 is also known as HRA and it came into effect in the United Kingdom in the October of 2000. It comprises of a series of various sections that have codify the protections stated in the European Convention on Human Rights into the United Kingdom law. Under the Human Right Act, all public bodies like the police, courts, hospitals, publicly funded schools, local governments and many others and any other bodies that carry out public functions must comply with the Convention rights. The Human Right Act has enabled individuals to file human rights cases in the domestic courts and human right cases do not have to be filed Strasbourg to be argued in the European Court of Human Rights[Equ13]. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 imposes an obligation on the courts to interpret all domestic legislation in compatibility with European Convention rights[Law10]. Before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, the European Convention of human rights was pertinent to statutory interpretation for the reason that it could not be the basis of rights and, unless a statute was unclear, it could not be used for statutory interpretation as was held in the Ex Parte Brind case in 1991[Law10]. However, it needs to be remembered the Human Rights Act 1998 still allows Parliament to enact legislation that violates European Convention rights if it wishes to do so[Law10]. Article 15 of the convention allows the member states to derogate from some rights that are guaranteed by the Convention in circumstances that threaten the life of the nation, in times of war or some other public emergency. This allowed derogations must comply with three conditions. There must be a public emergency that is threatening the life of the nation, any measures taken in response to the circumstances must be strictly required by the extremity of the situation and whatever measures are taken, they must be in compliance with state as well as international laws(article15[3]-European Convention). On top of these requirements, derogation must be procedurally sound. There has to some sort of formal announcement of derogation. Any measures taken on under derogation, as well as the ending of derogation need to be told to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe[Eur13]. The European Court is quite accepting of a state's need to derogate from the Convention. However, high level of scrutiny is applied by the European Court in deciding whether actions taken by the derogating state are “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation"(article15 [3]-European Convention). The European Court dismissed a claim in A v United Kingdom that said that the derogation requested by the British government after 9/11 attacks was invalid. Furthermore, section 4 of Human Rights Act 1998 provides that if a court is of the opinion that an Act of Parliament is incompatible with a convention or Article of the Convention, it may make a declaration of incompatibility. However, such a declaration does not affect the validity of the legislation. Coming onto the right to protest, Article 10 of the European Convention of human Rights i.e right to freedom of expression is the most crucial to this discussion. Under the article, everyone has the right to hold and voice their opinions. Everyone has the right to receive and pass on information and ideas without any interference from public authorities. The freedom needs to be exercised in accordance conditions and penalties as set by laws of the state. It is imperative in the interest of national security and for the protection of health, reputation and rights of others, as well for stopping disclosure of information that is received in confidence and for maintaining the impartiality of the judicial system that the freedom be exercised whilst keeping in mind the responsibilities that come with it(Article 10-The European Convention of Human Rights). As such, since the European convention is embedded into the British constitution, so is article 10. Under this article, the right to protest in street is granted to the public. However, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which is a framework for the powers assigned to police officers in England and Wales gives police the authority to be a hindrance in public protests. Though Pace is aimed at creating a balance between the general public and the police, some of the powers that that the police are granted like stopping, searching, arresting, detention, investigation[Hom13], certainly give them the power to stop public protests (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). The Public Order Act is the Act of Parliament of UK that was passed to manage extremist political movements in the 1930s. This Act banned people wearing political uniforms from public areas and in public meetings. It also made police consent requisite for political marches. The Act also banned organizing and training of individuals with the intent of taking over the law regulating bodies or for displaying physical force to promote political cause (Public Order Act 1936). Public Oder Act 1986 created a number of public order offences and replaced some other similar laws regarding public order. This new act established riots, violent disorder, affray, fear or provocation of violence and Intentional harassment, alarm or distress as offenses. Unfortunately, many of these offenses can be used to describe what public gatherings of protest are deemed to be all about. So in a sense, these acts keep people from protesting (Public Order Act 1986). Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced changes to existing law about reduction of existing rights and in more punishment for anti-social behaviors. Changes that allowed police greater stop and search powers were seen by many as ways of limiting the rights of public to protest in streets (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994). The overall assessment after taking into account these different acts is that the United Kingdom’s constitution does not provide sufficient protection for the right to protest in the streets. Bibliography Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 www13: , (www.parliament.uk, n.d.), Equ13: , (Equality and Human Rights Commission, n.d.), Law10: , (Law Teacher: The Law Essay Proffessionals, 2010), Eur13: , (European Court of Human Rights, n.d.), Hom13: , (Home Office, n.d.), Read More