Event: The role of the judiciary in the UK Constitution - Lady Hale
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 січ 2022
- In this video, produced for Constitutional Law Matters’ ‘The role of the judiciary in the UK Constitution’ event, Lady Hale, former President of the UK Supreme Court, explores the judiciary from a legal perspective. She considers the role of Parliament, the rule of law, the role of the higher courts, judicial review and the tension between the Government and the Courts. She also explores the recent Independent Human Rights Act Review and Independent Review of Administrative Law.
This video is part of the Constitutional Law Matters project of the Centre for Public Law, at the University of Cambridge. For more information see: constitutionallawmatters.org/
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and everyone who humbles himself will be exalted.
Wonderfully put!
The Legislature, the Government, and the Courts sounds more simplified sans mention of the Executive. Basically what you find in the centre of a capital city.
It's easy parliament law only applies by consent.NOT FORCE AS THEY DO
Equity rule's all
Good morning all. Can you tell me the how to sue a Judge? I mean to open a court process against the Judge?
Civil servants, ministers and other servants of the Crown (including judges) cannot be sued for actions taken by them in the course of performing their normal duties.
@@servicekid7453 So how do you hold them to account if they have abused their position?
Is it lawful to use a civil court to process a criminal claim. Do crimes have to have a victim? Are the Magistrates administrative courts?
What about people suffers?
📚🤔 i served in the Duke of Wellington Regiment who was Chief of London Tower for 26 years & priminister twice after Waterloo .
He Created King's College also .
Don't forget the past it will catch you
I have a question for you?
The whole of the government operate under the name of the king, this includes police constables, judges, MPs First Lord of the Treasury and everyone else in government.
Our king recently made an oath to the God of the Bible, saying he will defend the laws of God, and the true profession of the gospel, in Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verse five, it says man shall not wear women’s clothes. This is an abomination to the Lord.
So why isn’t the king defending this law of God as he made his oath to do?
And does it make sense to pay a drag queen wearing women’s clothes £215,000 of taxpayers money, not government money taxpayers money to an abomination according to the Bible ?
These people in power from the crown down don’t worship the creator GOD of the Bible they are satanic Freemasons. In genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them and said “ Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. These elites are of the serpent bloodline of Cain.
Taxpayers money was spent on the Alpha Centauri costume in the 1970s for Dr. Who also. It amazes me what is considered property of the crown.
But League of Gentleman would be crap if men weren't allowed to be wearing women's clothing.
Parliamentary sovereignty comes with its own drawbacks ...for I believe This very principle would and can hinder the dispensation or prevailing of justice and Rule of law . It's only a matter of time such an advantage would fall in a wrong hand... Given an unprecedented circumstances I am afraid Bentham's theory of utilitarianism would be misused . In modern democracy Judiciary must have the last say
It means PARLIAMENT is only sovereign over government not over the people as they said NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!
With due respect to Lady Hale, but this is a polluted explanation of the English Constitution, Jury's are the supreme power, the people are the creator's, administrative Law is unlawful due to constitutional restraints.
How can Parliament make constitutional Law that is supposed to control them and we the people be free!
Power has been usurped slowly over time... The people are Sovereign, the creator not parliament.
The Magna Carta 1215 is the Constitution, not any statutory or administrative law.
Not a word of your comment is true- sorry about that
You’re opinion is irrelevant
Your point is too vague with regards to the production of “constitutional law”. For example, could the Executive branch of Government propose a law that removed the Sovereignty of Parliament? If such a law was passed into legislation, it would have a disastrous effect on democracy. The judiciary is a check and balance against such legislation.
The judiciary’s main constitutional function is to ensure that Rule of Law is upheld; this means the Legislation that is passed in Parliament is enacted and enforced as intended; it isn’t there to arbitrarily create new legislation.
The is obviously the doctrine of Precedent within the common law, but that is not the same thing.
Magna Carta removed the absolute power of the Sovereign and granted some of these powers to the Barons. Democracy in this country came much later, and the people vote in MPs to make decisions and representations on their behalf. This idea that every individual person in the UK is involved in every single political decision because of Magna Carta is pure nonsense.
@@Simulacrum84by the courts own rule's NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW WE'RE ALL EQUAL UNDER THE LAW no one can impose their will on another
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
And the LAW is your NATURAL BIRTH RIGHT as it states in the act of settlement PARLIAMENT IS A FICTION OF LAW
@@sonnyjoe7433it actually is because the magna carta was created before government by the people CREATED BY THE PEOPLE to keep power away from the king again why we have the separation of powers
That’s a lie, the people are suffering