WORLD LAW/United Kingdom

UK Perspective | Correspondents' Reports | Government and Legislation | Courts and Judgments | Legal Press | Law Schools | Study Law in the UK | Other || World Law Home
—————————————————————————————
BACKGROUND
Background Notes
Constitutional Structure
Legal System
Human Rights
BBC One 
UK Perspective: July 7, 2000

Alisdair A. Gillespie, Barrister
JURIST UK Correspondent

Welcome to this week's UK Perspective. This week's column will be slightly shorter than usual because the past week has been relatively quiet, as UK legal stories go.

It has, however, been a bad week for Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister. Whilst this is not the place to talk about politics, Mr. Blair has featured in several legal headlines. Speaking in Germany, he suggested that police should be given powers to fine drunken "louts" on the street instantly (click here for story). This suggestion was apparently made without much consultation, and certainly the Home Office knew nothing about it. The Association of Chief Police Officers immediately condemned the scheme as unworkable and quite dangerous (click here for story). Critics were concerned that such a plan might lead to accusations of police corruption, since they would be handling cash and most people thought the idea of frog-marching a drunken idiot to a cash machine and helping them withdraw £100 was hysterical.

The police and the government have nonetheless agreed to investigate whether fixed penalty notices should be given out to drunken offenders (click here for story). Fixed penalty notices are at the moment used for things like speeding. The idea is that the person is given the notice and then they have so many days to pay the fine. This idea may initially seem quite sensible, but it is fraught with danger. First, no-one is sure whether being fined in this manner would qualify a person as a "criminal"; if it did this would, in effect, make the police judge, jury and executioner! Second, it is very difficult to see how the scheme is going to work. Let's assume that you're a police officer. You come across a drunk who is being "anti-social." You give them a ticket and I would imagine the first thing they would do - given that they are drunk and not terribly in control - would be to rip up the ticket in front of your eyes. Quite what happens then no-one knows.

One can only hope this knee-jerk scheme quietly dies. One reason why it may is that, to the embarrassment of the Prime Minister, it was reported on Thursday that his eldest son, Euan, was arrested in London for being drunk and incapable. (click here for story). This is highly embarrassing because this, presumably, means that Euan would be liable for one of the very fines the Prime Minister wants (although given his state it is highly doubtful he would have managed to put a card into a machine, or understood what a ticket was) but also Euan is actually under the age when you can buy alcohol. In the United Kingdom you cannot be sold alcohol until you are 18. Whilst it is not an offence to drink whilst under that age (it is an offence to sell alcohol to someone under 18) it is clearly not supposed to happen, and certainly not to that extent!

The other major story of the week also broke Thursday. This is part of the never-ending saga of Mohammed Al-Fayed. Al-Fayed owns the Harrods store in London, and is also famous for being the father of the late Dodi Al-Fayed, who was rumoured to be having a relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales. Mohammed Al-Fayed has, for many years, been trying to get a British passport, but successive governments have denied him one, alleging that he was of disreputable character. He responded to the initial findings by bringing down the Conservative government, and when Jack Straw, the current Home Secretary, denied him a passport last year he was similarly unamused. He tried to seek judicial review of the action but this was rejected (click here for story). Thursday he appealed to the Court of Appeal (click here for story). The decision has been reserved so we'll have some time to wait to see whether he will be given a passport, but regardless of which way it goes, it is highly unlikely that we will have heard the last of Mr Al-Fayed.

That's it for this week's UK Perspective. Please do keep your e-mail coming. Everyone at JURIST - and especially me - is very pleased to receive comments on this series and questions about UK law. I will try and answer as many as I can although, like JURIST itself, I cannot give legal advice.

———————————————————————
Correspondents' Reports

JURIST's own correspondent in the United Kingdom reports on recent developments in UK law:

———————————————————————
Government and Legislation

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights." Changes may come about formally through new acts of parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions.

Executive government rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) traditionally selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, to a lesser extent, the House of Lords. The prime minister is the leader of the majority party in the Commons, and the government is dependent on its support.

Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. The maximum parliamentary term is 5 years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve parliament and call a general election at any time. The focus of legislative power is the 650-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. Only a few of the 1,200 members of the House of Lords attend its sessions regularly. The House of Lords has more time than the House of Commons to pursue one of its more important functions--debating public issues.

The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation.

Source: U.S. Department of State

———————————————————————
Courts and Judgments

———————————————————————
Legal Press

———————————————————————
Law Schools ———————————————————————
Study Law in the UK

Summer Study Abroad

———————————————————————
Other
JURIST Correspondent
Alisdair A. Gillespie, Barrister (Middle Temple), Lecturer, Centre for Police Research and Education, University of Teesside, Middlesborough