Article 6, 'the Right to a Fair Trial'
Since the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, changes have had to be made to the justice system in respect of Article 6, 'the right to a fair trial '. Critically evaluate this statement.
INTRODUCTION
Reconciling domestic legislation with regulations acknowledged by the European Courts of Human Rights (ECHR) illuminates perceived violations of fundamental guarantees, integration being incompatible with the principles of accountability lying within the precepts of Parliamentary sovereignty and its doctrine of implied appeal. This concept has since been superseded by Section 2 (4) ECA 1972, which entails compliance to all Community legislation. The Human Rights Act 1998 illuminated this problem but the ECHR were limited to ambiguities of interpretation with constrained formal recognition of its legality.
The 2004 Constitution of Europe consists of 36 Protocols altogether, two further ones of which relate to the Treaties of Accession. Associated with this Constitution are 50 accompanying Declarations which clarify the Charter of Fundamental Rights and which establish the European External Action Service, and the Final Act confirming the signatures appended by the Heads of the 25 Member States all agree with the Treaty, Protocols and Declarations which make up the Constitution. Whilst awaiting ratification, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is the legislation currently revealed in the Human Rights Act 1998 within the context of which can be found Articles 2 to 12, plus Article 14 and Article 1 of the first Protocol. Article 6, applying specifically to the HRA, will be re-inserted into the Constitution of Europe as Chapter VI [Article 47]: ‘right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’
This essay briefly traces the history of the constitutional mandate or prerogative powers, discusses the hierarchy of the English legal system and the sovereignty of Parliament. It then examines the contention vis-à-vis the right to a fair trial in relation to EU
INTRODUCTION
Reconciling domestic legislation with regulations acknowledged by the European Courts of Human Rights (ECHR) illuminates perceived violations of fundamental guarantees, integration being incompatible with the principles of accountability lying within the precepts of Parliamentary sovereignty and its doctrine of implied appeal. This concept has since been superseded by Section 2 (4) ECA 1972, which entails compliance to all Community legislation. The Human Rights Act 1998 illuminated this problem but the ECHR were limited to ambiguities of interpretation with constrained formal recognition of its legality.
The 2004 Constitution of Europe consists of 36 Protocols altogether, two further ones of which relate to the Treaties of Accession. Associated with this Constitution are 50 accompanying Declarations which clarify the Charter of Fundamental Rights and which establish the European External Action Service, and the Final Act confirming the signatures appended by the Heads of the 25 Member States all agree with the Treaty, Protocols and Declarations which make up the Constitution. Whilst awaiting ratification, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is the legislation currently revealed in the Human Rights Act 1998 within the context of which can be found Articles 2 to 12, plus Article 14 and Article 1 of the first Protocol. Article 6, applying specifically to the HRA, will be re-inserted into the Constitution of Europe as Chapter VI [Article 47]: ‘right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’
This essay briefly traces the history of the constitutional mandate or prerogative powers, discusses the hierarchy of the English legal system and the sovereignty of Parliament. It then examines the contention vis-à-vis the right to a fair trial in relation to EU
Bibliography: Bradley, A W (2004): The Sovereignty of Parliament -Form or Substance? In Jowell, Jeffrey and Oliver, Dawn (eds): The Changing Constitution, (5th ed) Page 23 Dicey, A V(1959): Law of the Constitution (10th edn., 1959,by E.C.S Elliott, C. & Quinn, F. English Legal System, (1996) 1st Ed. Harlow: Longman, pp 369 – 370 Slapper, Gary and Kelly, David (2001): The English Legal System Templeman, Lord (Consultant Editor) Constitutional Law: The Machinery of Government, (1997) 1st Ed. London: Old Bailey Press. pp. 66 & 107. http://ue.eu.int/igcpdf/en/04/cg00/cg00087-ad01re01.en04.pdf Browning, Peter (2003): Response Memorandum to PASC, House of Commons, July 2003.[Online]Available from URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/355/35502.htm Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030; Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, HL Laker Airways v Department Of Trade [1977]