THE RULE OF LAW AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE: SOME HOME TRUTHS
THE RULE OF LAW AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE: SOME HOME TRUTHS
复制标题
法治和诉诸司法：一些基本事实
DOI：
10.1017/s0008197318000132
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Elliott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Elliott
对英国宪法的误解是微不足道的。其中最突出的可能是这样一种观念，即英国“没有宪法”，如果没有一部“根深蒂固的”或“成文的宪法”，基本权利就无法真正存在。在这份误解清单上，现在可以增加这样的观点--最高法院在R.(Unison)诉大法官[2017]UKSC 51，[2017]3 W.L.R.409一案中的裁决--司法系统远非任何宪政民主的不可谈判的特征，只不过是一种公共服务，对它的使用可以由行政部门相应地监管。将Unison描述为对此类误解的可喜纠正将是轻率的轻描淡写。在一本应该是每位部长和议员必读的巡回演讲稿中，最高法院阐明了独立法院和法庭的真正价值，阐明了普通法作为基本权利保障者的潜力，并重申了一套不言而喻的宪法家常真理。
MISAPPREHENSIONS about the UK's constitution are ten-a-penny. Most prominent among them, perhaps, are the notions that the UK “has no constitution” and that fundamental rights cannot meaningfully exist without an “entrenched” or “written constitution”. To that list of misunderstandings can now be added the ideas – brought to light by the Supreme Court's judgment in R. (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, [2017] 3 W.L.R. 409 – that the judicial system, far from being a non-negotiable feature of any constitutional democracy, is nothing more than a public service, and that access to it can be regulated by the executive accordingly. To describe UNISON as a welcome corrective to such misconceptions would be to engage in rash understatement. In a tour de force that ought to be compulsory reading for every Minister and parliamentarian, the Court elucidates the true value of independent courts and tribunals, illuminates the common law's potential as a guarantor of basic rights, and reiterates an axiomatic set of constitutional home truths.