The British Legal and Enforcement Systems - Essay Example

Public Law Human Rights Public Law Human Rights Titus Rock Manickam Order No. 235522 04 August 2008 Table of Contents Introduction3 The Human Rights Act 1998..4 Civil Liberties in the UK5 The United Kingdom Laws versus Civil Rights6 The British Legal and Enforcement Systems.7 Socialism versus Civil Liberties.8 Conclusion..10 Sources12 Public Law Human Rights Introduction The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) is a beacon of hope for aggrieved individuals and corporations in the United Kingdom downcast in the conclusion that they have been let down by the British courts. Of those aggrieved the majority comprise celebrities, royals, public figures holding top positions, even a section of common citizens, and the media. The salient features of the articles under the Human Rights Act 1998 are Right to life, Right to protection against torture, Right to protection against deprivation of liberty, Right to a fair hearing, Right to respect for private and family life, Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Right to freedom of expression, and Right to non-discrimination. (Legal Briefing) The Act has sufficient clauses to assist those enmeshed in legal complications with the fourth estate. Its provisions hold out the olive branch to hapless victims of snoopy, uncouth journalists, and those taken into custody for serious offences such as acts of terrorism. It is a step in the right direction for fairer trial and accurate justice. The courts are empowered to impose corrective, punitive or deterrent measures, although in the context of law relating to civil liberties in the United Kingdom, sometimes the sentences delivered by the honorable judges are found either too lenient with rogue elements or unduly harsh on law abiding plaintiffs. The media in UK has lobbied hard to dilute the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in its original form, and continue to do so to this day. The reasons are obvious. The HRA is permanent hindrance to their right to free expression. This Act has come as breath of fresh air especially to celebrities and powerful individuals caught in the glare of an uncompromising media. (Privacy And The Press) The Human Rights Act 1998 The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in the UK on 2nd October 2000. The Act makes public authorities in the UK more accountable in their dealing with citizens who can access any British court and seek redressal for infringement of rights enshrined in the Act. Evolving from the Council of Europe, a conglomerate of different European nations formed in 1949 as an aftermath to World War II, and the European Common market formed in 1957, this Act is the creation of the present day European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which UK is a signatory from among 41 European nations. (Protecting and promoting your rights) Reactions to this Act have been mixed in a continent accustomed to extreme emotions of ecstasies, turmoil, triumphs, blas and even stony nonchalance since the renaissance. Nevertheless, it has drawn the attention specifically two groups of the people in UK. One of them are those desperate for help from any quarter having exhausted all legal means for justice, and secondly, they are all those keen to get away from the piercing gaze the indicting Act, especially the media. The Act applies specifically to public authorities responsible for the general welfare of the populace. Never before in the history of the British administration was the common man more empowered to confidently take on the government for judicial lapses. It is important to bear in mind the two important factors of judicial interpretations or misinterpretations and recalcitrant occurrences such as terrorism in the present scenario which make issues for the Act more complex and difficult. Under the threat of terrorism, it is but natural for majority of the people to willingly sacrifice some civil liberties for safety and security. On the other hand, in the name of national security the UK regime is emboldened to use measures that borders on repression. In the ensuing melee, the explosive situation provides enough ammunition to the press to act on behalf of the aggrieved citizen and civil liberties and simultaneously on behalf of the repressive regime for the sake of national interest. The vicious cycle refuses to abate in the current circumstances. (Tania Branigan) Civil Liberties in the UK The Act is a shot in the arm for proponents of civil liberties in the UK where the unseen hand of the state machinery as well as shadows of snooping journalism lurk about like invisible monsters without restraint or hindrance. However, the Human Rights Act has its limitations. It does not have powers to overrule acts of parliament. The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is not a federal authority. All it can do in the event of conflicting interests is issue a Declaration of Incompatibility if the rift is too wide to patch up with a compromising formula. (An Overview From A Commercial Perspective) The Act has been enervating enough for the UK government to consider its repeal on a number of occasions. There is no guarantee that such considers may not recur in the foreseeable future. However, such considerations will only fuel further doubts about the sincerity of the government about upholding the cardinal principles of human rights and natural justice. (Bill Bowring) Nonetheless, the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is capable of making its presence felt and its diktats heard. The European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg is capable of playing the role of first among equals when push comes to shove, if required. After all, a UK citizen can always sue the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom laws versus Civil Rights The United Kingdom may not be the empire it once was, but its appetite to rule with an iron hand has by no means diminished. With all its outstanding provisions to champion the causes of fairness and freedom, the Human Rights Act 1998 has its work cut out with the British parliament which has already accumulated disproportionate powers at the cost of civil liberties, notably the powers of the state to detain a terrorist suspect (or anyone else in the name of terror suspect) for 28 days without providing any reason. (Liberty) One can expect more strident protestations from countries like Iran and Myanmar for raps from the Human Rights Act for their abysmal human rights record. However, the groundswell of negative public opinion regarding draconian legislations in the wake of terrorism and national security, especially from the media and human rights activists, does make the law in the UK appear bloodthirsty. Moreover, legislative proposals seeking toughening of laws already wreaking havoc in the lives of innocent citizens are raising hackles of human rights activists. And it is not just the terror suspects and accomplices who have reasons to fear. Even ordinary citizens affiliated to animal welfare organizations and volunteers found distributing leaflets can be held by the police for "serious criminal offences." (Grave Threat to Civil Liberties in the UK) Nonetheless, the UK in general is known for its high order of discipline and orientation towards achievements. Therefore, it appears that there is this penchant with the populace as a whole to be on the overdrive when dealing with situations. The British Legal and Enforcement Systems The British legal system and its enforcement agencies have perfected the art of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Cases of infringements of rights to privacy abound and most of the time the culprits, that is the press, get away with it. The two-edged sword of the law, with constant refurbishing, has turned so sharp that it is difficult to estimate its execution process and the fate of its recurrent victims. The tragic case of Princess Diana serves as an example. In the UK, as is in the case in many parts of Europe and the globe, the citizens are paying the price of a society moving away from its traditional roots and metamorphosing demographically and ideologically due to changing values, times and technologies. Ten years after the Act, the citizens may have found some reprieve. But the sword has not blunted. If anything, it appears sharper than ever. Nowhere else in the big wide world can the adage of the pen being mightier than the sword hold truer than in UK. And it is not the pen in the hands of the journalists alone, but also the writ of almost every individual in public service. Even the threat of terrorism has come in handy for public authorities to confront civil liberties issues in the interest of national security. (Tania Branigan) The British media has been most vociferous about the provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998 because it puts spoke into their wheels of fast paced paparazzi and sting operations. The fourth estate has reasons to be wary of the Act because it is one entity which seems to have effectively plugged the loopholes in the British law system bereft of a written constitution. Evidently, the benevolent aspects of the Human Rights Act have enough punch even if they cannot breach the sanctity of the British parliament. (The British Constitution) Notwithstanding the powerful and benevolent features of the Act, the policing, the law enforcement and intelligence agencies have reasons to cheer with more than one silver lining dangling across their dark overcast skies because of threats of terrorism and growing number of immigrants instigating more fears. On the other hand, with the reinforcement of this Act, the powers and authority of UK courts have increased in scope and they can now deal more decisively on human rights issues. Socialism versus Civil Liberties Last but not the least, it is important to view civil liberties in the context of the other end of the extreme. Why is there the need for civil liberty institutions or movements in the democratic setup A democratic government, after all, is formed on the bedrock of its peoples' support. The British system of governance is the harbinger and role model for all other democratic countries in the world like India. So what is lacking in this powerful concept and ideology that has necessitated a separate human rights entity for an entire continent When considering civil liberties in the present context, one is automatically inclined to think along the lines of socialist and dictatorial forms of governments where the ordeal of persecution and torture are high on the list of the peoples' daily sufferance. The human rights records of countries like China and Iran must attract more attention worldwide. So it is difficult to understand the reasons for the level of protests and complaints emanating in the UK. The communists considered inflation and private enterprises the twindevils of capitalism, and both inseparably entwined. To a large extent, the communists have proved themselves right. However, inflation and private entrepreneurship are hardly seen as the devils in a democratic country. On the contrary, democratic citizens are more enamored of state-sponsored terrorism. The differences in the capitalist and socialist systems were general existence of efficiency and accountability in the capitalist regime, while the socialists indulged in sloth, mafia and bullying tactics with their own citizenry at the cost of efficiency and growth. The result was scarcities of essential commodities regimes and ultimate demise of the socialist form of governance. With all its shortcomings, capitalism encouragesprivate enterprise, inventions and innovations that enable better prospects and living conditions for citizens of a democratic nation. In countries like Germany and Korea, the differences in living conditions of the democratic and socialist governments provided examples of the sharp contrasts that exist in these two forms of governance. Conclusion There is sharp division in the manner laws are enacted and applied in the UK. Nonetheless, there is perceptible preference for increased surveillance and other security measures. This situation is not unique to UK alone. The world is caught in a catch-22 situation where the governments are in a tight corner. They have to accept responsibility and blame whether they resort to action or not. The problem with democratic type governance is that people are accustomed to freedom and cannot come to grips with curtailment of rights for security reasons. The tension is aggravated exponentially in a terrorist act resulting in destruction and bloodshed. A responsible government, on its part, has to act decisively and fast in such situations, even if they quite often lead to blind alleys and scapegoats. This again leads to howls of protests by those at the receiving end of the stick. No suspect can be let off lightly and a thorough investigation involves very thin dividing line between perpetrators, accomplices and witnesses. Every civilized society in the world has penal codes and most contain the capital punishments. This is the civilized society's way of saying; we would not brook or tolerate gruesome acts of terror. Many feel that the eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth kind of justice does not find place in civilized societies. The sad truth, however, belies such arguments. We do not live in civilized societies anymore. There are gory fundamentalists who are intent on making such ideal environment acutely difficult. So the more relevant question is: do we serve the ordinary citizen longing for an orderly peaceful society or the whims of lawless elements, the blundering government, and the high handed public functionaries Even with the HRA in place, the best achievement is the right balance with opposing elements accusing or absolving one another. (S Krishnan) Source: An Overview From A Commercial Perspective, Human Rights Act 1998, http://www. croner.co.uk/Croner/Factsheets/legal/526-4 Human Rights Act 1998.pdf Bill Bowring, Popular lore unpopular law, The 2008 Awards, Times Higher Education, 25 May 2007, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.aspsectioncode=7&storycode=209043&featurecode=121 Chris Brauer, Civil Liberties in the UK, Wednesday, 24 January 2007, http://www.chrisbrauer.com/weblog/2007/01/civil-liberties-in-uk.php Grave Threat to Civil Liberties in the UK, Indymedia UK, 22.02.2005, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/02/305752.html Henry Porter, Britain's Liberties: The great debate, The Observer, Sunday, 23 April 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/apr/23/humanrights.constitution Human Rights, http://www.dca.gov.uk/peoples-rights/human-rights/index.htm James Hammerton, Civil Liberties in the aftermath of the atrocities of 11th September 2001, http://www.magnacartaplus.org/9-11aftermath/index.htm Kevin Scott, Civil Liberty, http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/ Legal Briefing, The Human Rights Act 1998, Mind Information, http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Legal/Legal+briefing+The+Human+Rights+Act+1998.htm Liberty, http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ Ministry of Justice, Human Rights, http://www.justice.gov.uk/whatwedo/humanrights.htm Privacy And The Press: The Impact of Incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights in the United Kingdom, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl9+Duke+J.+Comp.+%26+Int'l+L.+311 Protecting and promoting your rights, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, European Human Rights, http://www.nihrc.org/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=14 Richard Stone (2006) 'Textbook on Civil Liberties & Human Rights' Oxford: Oxford University Press p.13 S Krishnan, krish4949@yahoo.co.in Tania Branigan, Britons would trade civil liberties for security, The Guardian, Monday, 22 August 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/22/july7.terrorism The Assault on Britain's Civil Liberties, http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/james/politics/civlib.html The British Constitution, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution1.htm Trevor Mendham, Civil Liberties in the UK, http://www.trevor-mendham.com/civil-liberties/ Read More