While reviewing this case study, it has been determined that Sophia has received correct and
rational advice from his friend.
As to why there is no point to sue the executive Government due
to its use of prerogative powers. At the same time, British citizens are no longer able to sue the
However, the executive government can be sued in court under The European
Court of Justice’s 1991 Francovich rulings. According to this, the executive government can be
challenged with respect to various concerns and also be claimed in a matter of environment.
This is also supported by UK lawyers for suing the government in the high court for making
some changes that are not required from the environmental perspective in respect to air
pollutions. In regards to this, lawyers approached courts and seek improvements in plans for the
environmental betterment; however, it got rejected by the court. Therefore, it can be sated that
the government can be challenged when it comes to environment protection with suggestions to
make it better. However, the suggested recommendations must be technically sound and
appropriate from both perspective public and climate perspective.
At the same time, it is more or
less related to the human concern against the degrading of the environment and in order to
protect them (Mello, 2017).http://Great Public Law Assignment Sample 2022
On the other part, it is also the reasonability of the court and local
administrative authorities to stand in support of volunteers like Sophie. Apart from that, she can
argue in court for resolving the concerns in the implementation of environmental development
programs.
Also, she can demand the cost allocation to those programs and expenditure to date.
Hence, UK citizens are able to take charge and to present their concerns in court.
Assessment 4
However, it can be said that controversial trade deal agreement is confusing aspect in the context
of the environmental aspect.
In this, it is found that controversial trade deal agreement will lead
to increase in the business activities in the country and improve the economic power of the
country.
A controversial trade deal agreement between the two nation increases business deals in
the between the particular countries.
It invites the more foreign companies to enter in the
domestic market and conduct the business activities.
However, the increase in the business
activities and manufacturing activities will increase carbon emission in the environment that is
As concerning of the human right, it can be said that sue against the government action in the
case of trade agreement, the court will analyze whether the nature and subject of the case is faire
and not.
There is possibility that the government will concern on the issue of Sophie because
there is not person welfare of Sophie.
Beside of this, it is thinking of the sustainability of the
environment that is major concerning in the current business environment. Hence, there is
chance that the subjective of the case against the government can be subjective.
Question B.
As per the case study, Sophie is the convinced girl as a member of the public will have to change
the ways of living if the planet is for standing a chance.
Moreover, Sophie is aware of the aircraft
as it releases a lot of carbon emission and this release of carbon emission includes several terrible
consequences in respect of the environment.
In this way, Sophie adopted several of ways to
aware the passengers and other people.
It adopted the way of berating the passengers who are
traveling by terminal g at Heathrow Airport.
At this place, she shouts ‘Do not fly’, ‘Stop being so
selfish’ and ‘Stop destroying the planet’.
Apart from this, she sometimes tries to manage to hang
the big banner in which a message of ending the aviation industry is written and this act has been
done by her inside the Terminal 5 building.
One day, the British transport police were on duty of patrolling at the airport and Sophie was
protesting by managing the banner.
Whereas,
Sophie was protesting against the carbon emission released from the aircraft but her way of
Assessment 7
protesting was not legal and ethical so it can be mentioned that police did not do anything that
might have violated Sophie’s freedom of speech or expression.
Defined the police have a defense under section 6(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 if an Act
of Parliament allowed them to “take all actions needed to guarantee the wellbeing of
passengers”
In the above-defined case, it is clearly mentioned that Sophie was berated the passengers and
shouted slogans such as ‘Don’t fly!
Stop being so selfish! Stop destroying the planet that hinders
the passengers very much.
At this time, if Sophie sues on the public officer on the basis of her
Human Rights according to the Human Rights Act 1998, then the police officer has a defense as
Assessment 8
police can prove that they are innocent and Sophie is the culprit who breaks the rule of publicly
protesting by hindering the general public (Newlands, 2017).http://Great Public Law Assignment Sample 2022
Question C
While discussing the parliament, it is determined that parliament sovereignty is defined as the
principle of the UK constitution.
Usually, the legislation
cannot be overruled by the courts and there is no parliament that can pass laws which the future
parliaments do not have the authority to be changed In this manner, the parliament sovereignty is
defined as the most important part in relation to the UK constitutions.
In regards to the UK’s
laws, some people define that country has an “unwritten constitution” but it is not completely
true. Whereas, the constitution of the UK may not exist within a single text same as the
constitution of the USA and Germany but at the same time, it is determined that its major part is
In other words, parliament sovereignty within the UK is defined as the
concept which has long been debated.
Thus, the constitution of UL is often defined as ‘Partly
written and wholly uncodified’.
In addition to this, over the past years, there are several laws that
have been passed by the parliament which laws usually limit the implication of parliamentary
sovereignty.
In a similar manner, these different laws represent the political developments at
both places such as within the UK and outside the UK. In these laws, the Human Rights Acts
1998, the UK’s entry to the European Union in 1973, the decision for establishing a UK Supreme
Court in 2009 that ends the House of Lords functions like the final court of appeal in the UK.
Assessment 9
Thus, on the basis of this, it can be mentioned that Parliament has the authority to pass the
legislation can be changed by the future parliament.
In this concern, the court’s judges are also
included in these kinds of decisions of the parliament so that an effective decisions can be made.
Assessment 10
Bibliography
Cole, M. (2017). Education, equality and human rights: issues of gender,’race’, sexuality,
disability and social class.
UK: Routledge.
Cowell, F. (2017). Defining and understanding the case against the Human Rights Act.
In Critically Examining the Case Against the 1998 Human Rights Act (pp. 3-31). UK:
Routledge.
Heifer, L. R. (2017). Over legalizing human rights: International relations theory and the
Commonwealth Caribbean backlash against human rights regimes. In International Law
and Society (pp. 125-204). UK: Routledge.
McLean, J. (2017). Legislative invalidation, human rights protection and s 4 of the New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act. In Bills of Rights (pp. 237-264). UK: Routledge.
Mello, P. A. (2017). Curbing the royal prerogative to use military force: The British House of
Commons and the conflicts in Libya and Syria. West European Politics, 40(1), 80-100.
Mello, P. A. (2017). Curbing the royal prerogative to use military force: The British House of
Commons and the conflicts in Libya and Syria. West European Politics, 40(1), 80-100.
Na’aman, N. (2016). A Violation of Royal Prerogative: The Shebna Prophecy (Isaiah 22.15–19)
in Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 40(4), 451-465.
Newlands, G. (2017). Christ and human rights: The transformative engagement. UK: Routledge.
Poole, T. (2010). United Kingdom: the royal prerogative. International journal of constitutional
law, 8(1), 146-155.
Assessment 11
Russell, M., Grover, D., & Wolter, K. (2016). Does the Executive dominate the Westminster
legislative process?: six reasons for doubt. Parliamentary Affairs, 69(2), 286-308.
Serbin, M. (2018). Stemming the tide of illiberalism? Legal mobilization and adversarial
legalism in Central and Eastern Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 51(3),
177-188.
Strong, J. (2018). The war powers of the British parliament: What has been established and what
remains unclear?. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(1), 19-
34.
Totient, M. (2017). New forms of judicial review and the persistence of rights-and democracy-
based worries. In Bills of Rights (pp. 265-290). UK: Routledge.
Vickers, L. (2016). Religious freedom, religious discrimination and the workplace. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
