Public Law Coursework Assessment
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 government for breaching the law Brexit till the time new laws are undertaken on the board (Şerban, 2018).
However, the executive government can be sued in court under The European Court of Justice’s 1991 Frankovich 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).
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.
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 harmful for the sustainability of the environment (Na’aman, 2016). Moreover, it is also analyzed that it is a negative aspect of the controversial trade deal agreement.
According Mello (2017), a common man is allowed to challenge the decision of the government in the court. This kind of the behavior come under the fundamental right of the people if the person and group of the persons think that decision of the government is not valid and it has the negative impact on their rights.
But, in this, it is first important that person should ensure that for why it is challenging the government. It means that reason of the challenging the government should be genuine. Otherwise, the person can face difficulty by the decision of the court.
But, in the seventeenth-century, it is determined that there is not right to a person to challenge the progressive power. It means that the UK government does not allow the person to challenge their government.
Hence, it is determined that prerogative power has not feature that allows to any to raise the question on the government. It is because the government works on the basis of the principle for the aim of welfare of every person in the society.
However, the concept of challenging the government decision has risen latter. At the same time, the law for the protection of the human rights ensures that a person has right challenge the government decision if it is harmful for the society. Hence, the trade agreement is really complicated situation for the government (Poole, 2010).
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.
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. At this time, an officer arrests Sophie on the basis of public order legislation and he also destroys her banner (Heifer, 2017).
In this concern, there is a need to considered whether the police might have violated Sophie’s freedom of expression. So the discussion is as defined below:
Consider whether the police might have violated Sophie’s freedom of expression. You are not required to look into specific public order legislation
While concerns the freedom of expression or free speech, it is determined that under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, there is right to “freedom of expression” to everyone in the UK.
This is the fundamental right that has been set out for freedom and it is entitled by everyone in the UK. However, the court has been cleared that this freedom law may be the subject to the formalities, different condition, several kinds of restrictions, as well as penalties that are interpreted by law and these, are also necessary under the democratic society (Tushnet, 2017).
In addition to above, it is declared that earlier defined restrictions may be for the restriction of disorder or crime, in the interest of national security, for the safety of health as well as the morals, in respect of to protect the reputation as well as rights of other people, for the territorial as well as public safety,
in respect of preventing the disclosure of the important information that is received in confidence and for impartiality of the judiciary and maintaining the authority etc (Cole, 2017).
Thus, it can be mentioned that the policeman did not violate Sophie’s freedom of expression apart from this, Sophie was disturbing the general public by berating the passenger and shouting different slogans at the public areas that are illegal in the UK and there are the proper rule and laws for these kinds of offensive acts that have been done by Sophie (Vickers, 2016).
Whereas, Sophie was protesting against the carbon emission released from the aircraft but her way of 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.
So, it is clearly mentioned in section 6 (2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that is for the public authority (McLean, 2017). In which mentioned that under the Human Rights Act, two types of public authority defined.
One is core public authorities like local authority as well as police officers should act by the way that is compatible along with the Convention rights until one of section 6 (2) exemption applicable.
At the same time, the second public authority is the hybrid public authority that contains some functions related to public nature under section 6 (3).
In addition to this, if the act of parliament provides the authority to the public authority to “carry out the important actions which are required for maintaining the wellbeing of the passengers,
then in the above situation in which police officer arrested Sophie that was not wrong because it was done for the wellbeing of the passenger who was traveling through terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport (Cowell, 2017).
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 per the under section 6 (2) of the Human Rights Acts 1998.
With the help of this act, public 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).
While discussing the parliament, it is determined that parliament sovereignty is defined as the principle of the UK constitution. In this way, this makes the parliament as the supreme legal authority under the UK that can develop or end any law (Strong, 2018).
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 written down and much of it under the laws passed within the Parliament identified as the statute law (Russell et al. 2016).
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.
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.
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). Overlegalizing 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.
Russell, M., Gover, D., & Wollter, K. (2016). Does the Executive dominate the Westminster legislative process?: six reasons for doubt. Parliamentary Affairs, 69(2), 286-308.
Şerban, 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.
Tushnet, 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.
.
