Evaluate the view citizens can no longer feel confident that their rights in the UK are secure and
established.
[30 Marks]
Paragraph One- Judicial Review
Increasing use of judicial review by judges and courts to protect rights and liberties, to decide on
whether ministers are acting ultra vires.
November 2013, Court of Appeal upheld a legal challenge by five disabled individuals against the
decision to abolish the Independent Living Allowance, £300 million fund crucial for enabling severely
disabled people in Britain to live independently and access necessary care, ruling that the
government had failed to adequately assess the significant adverse impact on disabled individuals,
breaching its equality duty.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), where the UK Supreme Court
ruled that Parliament must be consulted before triggering Article 50 to initiate Brexit, emphasizing
the importance of parliamentary sovereignty in such matters.
Counter Argument:
Rights are not secure as justices (unelected officials) are making important decisions and rather
should be elected representatives, also most reviews end up siding up with government.
Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019), the UK Supreme Court ruled that the
Investigatory Powers Tribunal's decision-making process regarding government surveillance was
subject to judicial review. Despite this ruling, judicial reviews often still result in outcomes favouring
the government's interests over individual privacy rights, highlighting concerns about the
effectiveness of such reviews in protecting civil liberties.
Legislate against- UK Supreme Court ruling in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2004). Indefinite detention without trial of foreign terror suspects incompatible with the European
Convention on Human Rights, Parliament enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, introducing
control orders allowing restrictions on suspects without trial.
established.
[30 Marks]
Paragraph One- Judicial Review
Increasing use of judicial review by judges and courts to protect rights and liberties, to decide on
whether ministers are acting ultra vires.
November 2013, Court of Appeal upheld a legal challenge by five disabled individuals against the
decision to abolish the Independent Living Allowance, £300 million fund crucial for enabling severely
disabled people in Britain to live independently and access necessary care, ruling that the
government had failed to adequately assess the significant adverse impact on disabled individuals,
breaching its equality duty.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), where the UK Supreme Court
ruled that Parliament must be consulted before triggering Article 50 to initiate Brexit, emphasizing
the importance of parliamentary sovereignty in such matters.
Counter Argument:
Rights are not secure as justices (unelected officials) are making important decisions and rather
should be elected representatives, also most reviews end up siding up with government.
Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019), the UK Supreme Court ruled that the
Investigatory Powers Tribunal's decision-making process regarding government surveillance was
subject to judicial review. Despite this ruling, judicial reviews often still result in outcomes favouring
the government's interests over individual privacy rights, highlighting concerns about the
effectiveness of such reviews in protecting civil liberties.
Legislate against- UK Supreme Court ruling in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2004). Indefinite detention without trial of foreign terror suspects incompatible with the European
Convention on Human Rights, Parliament enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, introducing
control orders allowing restrictions on suspects without trial.
