The power given to judges by judicial review actions and the Human Essay

The power given to judges by judicial review actions and the Human Rights Act 1998 is unreasonable. - Analyse this statement - Essay Example Under certain restricted circumstances, the claimant is entitled to be awarded damages. In addition, the court may pass prohibitory or obligatory orders, restraining the authority from acting unlawfully or to force it to act in a lawful manner.2 As such, judicial review is customarily applicable to the exercise of statutory power, by a public body. It is quite infrequent, in such cases, for a court to disallow judicial review, on the grounds that the exercise of power was unrelated to the discharge of some public function or duty owed to the individual. Issues that in general fall outside the purview of judicial review are those that pertain to the initiation of military action against a hostile nation or the deployment of troops.3 Moreover, a public authority is precluded from breaching the rights provided by the European Convention on Human Rights via Human Rights Act 1998. In R (on the application of A and others) v. Partnerships in Care Ltd, a private mental health institution ha d forcibly restrained the claimant, in accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. The court ruled that this institution was discharging the function of a public authority, as provided for in section 6(3)(b) of the HRA.4 In addition, section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the principal public authorities to ensure that the Convention rights are not infringed in their functions. In addition, section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 directs that these public authorities have to ensure that their functions are in compliance with the rights provided by the Convention. The rights provided by the European Convention on Human Rights have largely been frustrated. This is due to the penchant of the courts to interpret section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in such a manner that most of the organisations are not classified as a Public Authority. Furthermore, this distressing situation is exacerbated by the fact that the courts have not yet concluded, whet her a regulatory body constitutes a public authority. There are several cases that have challenged the legal effect of Acts of Parliament, in the UK. The decision in Factortame reduced the effectiveness of parliamentary sovereignty. In this case, the House of Lords suspended legislation, in order to establish that EC law had precedence over domestic law. In Jackson and others v Her Majesty’s Attorney General, the plaintiffs contented that the Parliament Act 1949 did not have legal effect as it was not an Act of Parliament. Consequently, the Hunting Act 2004 was also invalid, as it was not an Act of Parliament. This case dealt with whether the judiciary could challenge an Act of Parliament.5 Their Lordships dismissed the plaintiff’s argument and upheld the validity of the Hunting Act. It is indispensable for the courts to recognise the fact that power derived from the constitution is to be apportioned between the various governmental branches. This necessitates an appro ach founded on due deference towards the executive and legislature by the judiciary. It is not possible for supremacy to coexist in this environment.6 All the same, there are several issues, wherein the situation is muddled, due to a plethora of immaterial doctrinal instruments. In Aston Cantlow the House of Lords held that public authorities