Is the concept of the rule of law, as defined by dicey, still relevant Essay

Is the concept of the regularization of fairness, as defined by dicey, still relevant to the UK constitution and legal system today - Essay ExampleProfessor A V Dicey popularized this concept, and was able to describe three major tenets of the rule of law. These tenets atomic number 18 (Macdonald, 2010),Nobody is above the law, and everybody should be treated equally before the laws that govern the country. This is an indication that the laws of the land apply equally, to everybody in the alike manner. This is regardless of economic, social and political status.The emergence of the constitution or laws is as a result of author judicial decisions that determined the rights in which private people should enjoy. On this basis, the constitution is not the source upon which laws emerge. The sources of law are therefore a consequence of the inherent rights of individuals. The constitution is derived as a consequence of the rights of people.These principles and concepts are widely app licable in the coupled Kingdom. The first principle by Dicey concerns itself with discretionary powers and the rule of law. Any government action must be recognize and authorized by law. That is the reason as to why the government cannot arbitrarily arrest a person, and charge him or her for the crimes that are not recognized by law. This principle is established in the 1994 case of R vs. Horseferry Road Magistrates. This was a case that examined the legal power of a magistrate to protect the process of the court from abuse. Under this case, the defendant was arrested illegally, and in a breach of the extradition laws of the United Kingdom.The court denoted that an individual, who is charged with a criminal offence, must procure a fair trial. If an individual cannot receive a fair trial for an offence that he is charged for, then he or she should not be tried at all. On this note, the court denoted that the authorities illegally detained and arrested the defendant, and on this ba sis, the entire pursuance process was illegal (Flores, 2013). Under this case, it is therefore possible to denote that the judiciary had the powers of