Public Law and Human Rights

QUESTION 1

The Imaginary Street Traders (Licensing) Act 2017 gives power to licensing tribunals to grant trading licenses to applicants. Under the Local Government (miscellaneous provisions) Act 1982, anyone selling exposing, or offering to sell any article in a street within a Medway needs street trading consent from the authority (World Health Organization, 2012). The street for the purpose includes any road, footway, beach, or other area to which the public has access without payment. The streets are defined in two ways that are:

• A prohibited street
• A consent street

To apply for the license person should be more than 17 years old. The license applied for will be refused on the grounds if any existed at the time of applying:

• If there is not enough space in the street while applying for the license.
• If the trader wants to trade for fewer days than the minimum required trading days.
• If the applicant has done any previous offense or is convicted for other reasons stipulated by the council.
• The applicant has failed to pay fees due under any other street trading license or has failed the way of using a previous street trading license.

The evaluation of the process shall be done on the grounds that if there is any refusal exists, the council may give the license for fewer days than requested or may allow trading in certain items only (Stein, 2017). The council will either grant the license or serve the notice to the applicant within a reasonable time.

The failed applicant has the right to redress for the application within 21 days of the date notification for refusal has been given. Applicant has the right to appeal in the magistrates court or can also appeal in crown court.

The Human Rights Act was passed in the year 1998 and it defends the rights of the public against acts done by a public organization including the government, police, and local councils. They make laws to treat every citizen equally with fairness and dignity (Skogly, 2012). This act protects, the right to life, the right to a fair trial and no punishment without law, right to trade for livelihood. If the public authority has interfered with any of the rights recognized then the victim can write to public authority to remind them of their legal obligations under the Human Rights Act, they can also make appeal in the courts which may take particular action against the public authority.

In the given case Harry runs a market stall selling fruits and vegetables and has applied for licensing tribunals so that his license is to be renewed. The license applied for the public bodies such as central government and local bodies have to obey some laws and the laws that govern them is known as Public law. It covers all the matters of law that arise among the public and the state. This law involves criminal, tax, and constitutional or administrative law. Judicial review is done by high courts in the country and is a process of reviewing acts done by public authorities or reviewing court orders or tribunal decisions. Street trading licensing act gives the rights to the street traders, so as to trade and earn their livelihood by trading on the street. This assignment contains the legal aspect and the principles relating to judicial review and human rights. same was refused because of the conviction that arose three weeks ago because of his dangerous driving. After the proceedings, Harry was not given proper reasons or the grounds for the refusal.

As in the case the magistrate has refused to give the license to Harry. He can demand judicial review on this matter. The court didn't give him the proper justification or the grounds for refusal of license. He came to know the facts through the clerk only. No notice for refusal has been given to Harry. Here Harry can appeal for review against the magistrate court in crown court and within 14 days of refusal of appeal. Street trading is one of the major ways of living life and earns his livelihood. It cannot be refused to give the license because of any insufficient grounds of refusal (Sikkink, 2014). The fact also includes that a new policy has been adopted by the court which suggests that anyone convicted of a criminal offense should not be given a license and having an unspent conviction will not necessarily be a bar to success and applications will be dealt with on a case to case basis. Harry was doing the business ethically and was performing his trade in a good manner so as to live his living for 10 years. As the tribunal didn't give Harry proper reasons for its decisions the human right of Harry has been deceased. As it involves the human rights of Harry it should be taken into consideration to give him the licence. The undisclosed judgment is not correct and Harry can go for judicial review.

QUESTION 2

In UK Supreme Court gave a statement of Incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, and found that the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is not compatible to European human rights. The famous case that was discussed in front of the bench of Lady Hale(president of the bench), Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, and Lady Black was R vs Secretary of state of international development[2018] UKSC 32, the court mentioned that different-sex couples cannot enter in civil partnerships and this infringed the rights of the people under Article 14. The civil partnership act 2004 was introduced to permit same-sex couples to come into civil partnership lawfully. This law gave them some rights that they could obtain through marriage. But this also had some feedback (Sikkink and Lutz, 2017). In 2004 same sex partners were not allowed to do marriage in UK. So for this, the Same Marriage Act 2013 came into existence. Because of which the couples of same sex had the choice to enter into civil partnership or a union whereas the couple of different sex had the sole option to marry. So the judicial position is differentiated.

The question that came in front of court is that,to decide whether this law was discriminatory among human rights and was also adverse to the rights in European meeting on human rights. The case was brought to the court by different-sex couples Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, they didn't want to get married because they had a negative significance on the functions of women. Alternatively, they wanted they move into a civil partnership.

The UK authorities recognized the law as it is prejudiced, but they wanted more sufficient time so as to eliminate the discrimination that had arisen. As the court wanted more time to decide is the infringement and is not sufficient. Even is the court would be given the time then it would not result in a fair balance and would also not bring the interest of applicant and of the wider community. So because of this there has been breach of the appliers hum

UPTO55%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit