Lesson video

Hello, my name's Ms. Ikomi, and I'm a teacher from London.

I'm gonna be taking you through today's lesson.

Let's get started.

Today's lesson is called What threatens the rule of law today?

It is part of the wider unit Rule of law, Key Stage Four.

By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to analyze the threats to the rule of law in the UK today.

As today's topics could be seen as sensitive, we're going to discuss some ground rules for taking part in this lesson.

First of all, it's important to listen to others.

It's okay to disagree with each other, but we should listen properly before making assumptions or deciding how to respond.

When disagreeing, it's important that we challenge the statement, not the person.

We must respect privacy.

We can discuss examples in a general sense, but please do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including yourself.

We listen without passing judgment.

We can explore beliefs and misunderstandings about a topic without fear of being judged.

And last, you can choose your level of participation.

Everyone has the right to choose not to answer a question or join in with a discussion.

We'll never put anyone on the spot.

Let's get started.

The keywords we're going to hear in today's lesson are rule of law.

This is the principle that all individuals within a state, including the government and leaders, are subject to the same laws and must follow them.

Threat, this is a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.

And independence, judges are free to make decisions based only on the law and the evidence, without being influenced or pressured by the government or other powerful groups.

We're going to hear these words come up in today's lesson, so keep an eye out for them.

We're going to start by thinking about what puts the rule of law at risk today?

We know that the rule of law means that all individuals within a state, including the government and leaders of that state, are subject to the same laws and have to follow them.

Nobody is above the law, not even the Prime Minister.

Laura's telling us that the rule of law is a fundamental British value.

However, we shouldn't just assume that it will always stay strong.

There are still threats today that can put the rule of law at risk, so it's important we think about these so we can put things in place to make sure that doesn't happen.

Some of our other fundamental British values are individual liberty and freedom, democracy, the right for us all to get involved in who leads us, and mutual respect and tolerance.

Lucas is asking Laura, "What might be some of the threats that could put the rule of law at risk?

" This is a really good question, and some of that we're going to think about today.

One of those threats could be corruption.

This means when people in power might misuse their position for personal gain.

That might be financial gain or it might be for gain in other ways.

Another threat could be as a result of poor decision making, if people are failing to follow the law properly.

Mis, dis, or malformation is another thing that can threaten the rule of law.

False information and spreading that can undermine trust in legal systems, meaning that the rule of law may become risk.

Another threat is discrimination and inequality.

This means treating people unfairly because of characteristics, such as their race or their age.

We're gonna have a think about this one in more depth.

The rule of law means that everybody has to be treated fairly by the police, who are the people that enforce the law, and also by other public organizations, things like hospitals and schools.

All public sector organizations are required to promote the Equality Act 2010.

The Equality Act is a really important law that means that people have to be treated equally based on nine protected characteristics, and if they don't experience their treatment, they have legal recourse to do something about it.

What that means in practice is that public sector organizations have to eliminate discrimination, harassment, and victimization either through staff or people who are using their services.

They have to advance equal opportunities.

That also might look like who they employ or who uses those services.

Encourage positive relationships between people.

One power that the police have is to stop and search a person if an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that an unlawful item is being carried.

Aisha's asking a really good question, "Can the police just stop anyone if they feel like it?

" This is important because the answer to this question is no.

We're gonna have a think about why.

In the UK, we have something called the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

This means that police have to act in particular ways, and they can't just stop and search people based on a hunch.

Sometimes this idea of reasonable grounds is called reasonable suspicion, as Police Officer Kofi is telling us.

This means that the police have to have a specific reason to support their suspicion for stopping someone.

That might be that they suspect you're carrying something that you shouldn't have, for example, illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen property, or something that could be used to commit a crime.

If the police are going to stop and search someone, this has to be approved by a senior police officer, and can only happen in specific circumstances.

When this happens, people still have rights.

Police officers have to tell you the reason that you have been stopped, and also their name and station.

Let's do a quick check for what we've done so far.

I'd like you to choose the correct answer out of the four statements below.

As part of the Equality Act 2010, police have a duty to advance equality of what?

Is it, A, duty, B, relations, C, opportunities, or D, victims?

Pause your video and have a go at this now.

The correct answer is C, opportunities, because it's a public organization.

In the year ending March, 2024, people identifying as Black or Black British were stopped and searched at a rate 3.

7 times higher than people from a white ethnic group across England and Wales.

Sam's asking, "Why does this matter?

Are the police just doing their job?

" The reason that this is important is because these figures aren't automatically telling us why there is a difference between who is getting stopped and searched at a higher rate.

This tells us what is happening, but doesn't automatically tell us why this is going on.

The figures encourage us to ask questions about fairness, trust, and equality before the law, to make sure that the rule of law doesn't come under further threat.

Overall in these cases, an unlawful item was found in 27.

8%, which is 145,000, just over, of stop and searches.

This is known as the find rate.

Some people argue that differences in stop and search statistics suggest ethnicity may sometimes influence who is searched, rather than suspicion alone, despite the laws around stop and search.

Sofia's telling us, "Some critics have questioned if police forces are institutionally racist.

This claim has been denied by police forces, but some critics point to historic events as reasons to disagree.

" Institutional racism is when an organization or system treats people unfairly because of their race, ethnicity, or cultural background.

This can happen through established rules, structures, and processes, or behaviors that unintentionally disadvantage certain groups.

This might mean that people don't intend to be racist, but some of their behavior can mean that other people are at a disadvantage.

Let's do another check.

What is the find rate for stop and searches?

Is it A, 21.

8%, B, 27.

8%, C, 30.

8%, or D, 50.

8%?

Pause your video and have a go at this now.

The correct answer is B.

Some people argue that stop and search statistics show how the rule of law can be threatened if everyone is not treated equally.

One case that demonstrates this is the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Stephen was 18.

He lived in London, loved athletics, and wanted to become an architect.

In April of 1993, Stephen was waiting at a bus stop with his friend.

A group of young men attacked him in a racist attack.

Stephen was stabbed and died shortly afterwards.

This is an awful thing to happen to anyone, and normally when something like this happens, there's a process in terms of how it's investigated.

The police investigate thoroughly, evidence is collected, suspects are questioned, a case is prepared and brought to court.

This is so that justice can be served.

Unfortunately, in Stephen's case, this did not happen.

Instead, the investigation had some serious failures.

This meant strong leads were not followed up.

Suspects were not arrested quickly.

The case was not treated with the urgency that it required.

Stephen's family were therefore left waiting for justice.

His parents, and especially his mother, kept kept speaking out about this situation.

They were asking questions about why some of these failures had occurred, and they demanded answers of the police as a public organization.

As a result of this, in 1999, the government ordered an investigation called the MacPherson Report.

In this report, it was found that the police investigation was affected by institutional racism.

That is the structural treatment of people from different ethnic minority groups in a different way to one another.

This doesn't mean that every officer was racist.

What it means is that the system and procedures allowed unfair treatment to be rife, especially based on race.

70 recommendations were made to improve fairness, training and accountability, ultimately to try and stop things like that ever happening again.

Some of Stephen's attackers were eventually convicted, however, this took nearly 20 years.

This case demonstrates why institutional racism or discrimination can put the rule of law and serving justice at risk.

Let's do a quick check.

I'd like you to fill in the blanks in the sentence below.

Pause your video now and have a go at this.

Let's check our answers.

Institutional racism means the system treats people unfairly, especially based on race.

It's important to have the distinction between institutional racism and individual racism.

It's not necessarily that all the officers were racist in this case.

We're going to spend a little bit longer putting this into practice.

I'd like you explain why racism is a threat to the rule of law.

I'd like you to use the Stephen Lawrence case and other examples, such as stop and search, to support your answer.

Pause your video now and have a go explaining in a paragraph.

Let's check our answers.

I asked you to explain why racism is a threat to the rule of law.

Your answer might have included some of the following: The rule of law is the idea that all people are treated fairly under the law.

It's a fundamental British value.

However, police powers, such as stop and search, disproportionately impact Black people.

This has led some to argue that racism is a threat to the rule of law because it shows not all people are treated equally.

The Stephen Lawrence case further highlights this.

The MacPherson Report found that institutional racism in the police affected how the investigation was carried out, delaying justice and showing how systems, not just individuals, can allow unfair treatment.

Well done if you included some of that in your answer.

Next, we're going to think about why does an independent judiciary matter?

The word independence means being free from influence from others, and being able to make your own decisions.

You're independent from your friends or your family because you are able to make decisions about some things that are gonna have an impact on you and potentially others around you.

Legal professionals like judges and magistrates who make up the judiciary, and this is separate from the legislature and the executive, they must be independent, and this is really important to uphold the rule of law.

This is because we have to make sure everyone is treated fairly under the law, and we don't have the influence of powerful people having an impact on that.

Andeep's asking us a really good question.

"Imagine the Prime Minister and a judge were best friends.

Why might this cause a problem?

" Thinking about the difference between independence and influence is gonna help us to think about the answer to that.

If our judiciary was not independent, it might make decisions in favor of certain groups or people such as the government, and that's not necessarily going to be equal or fair.

This undermines the rule of law, and might make people lose confidence in their right to a free and fair trial if they think that they're going to be treated differently based on their status.

Sometimes people use the court to challenge government actions.

The ability to do this is fundamental in maintaining the rule of law.

This means that people need to trust the system is fair for the rule of law to work.

Let's do a quick check.

True or false, people are not able to take the government to court if they think something is wrong?

Pause your video and choose your answer.

Can you also have a think about why you've chosen that answer?

The correct answer is false.

This is because people are able to use the judicial system if they think the government has done something wrong or their rights are violated.

We're going to think about some examples of this in practice.

In 2019, business owner Gina Miller challenged the UK Prime Minister at the time in court over his decision to prorogue, which means pause, Parliament.

This stopped MPs from debating Brexit, which is where the UK left the European Union, as voted in the referendum.

Miller argued that the Prime Minister had acted unlawfully, and that Parliament should debate and vote on Brexit.

The Prime Minister argued that he had the legal right to suspend parliament, therefore, Gina Miller took up the rule of law in order to make a case in the opposite direction.

Miller versus the Prime Minister was an important court case.

The judges ruled that the Prime Minister must respect Parliament and allow MPs to debate important issues, and Brexit was one of those.

Lucas is asking us, "Why did the independent judiciary matter in this case?

" Andeep's telling us, "Without independence, the judges might have felt pressure to just do what the Prime Minister wanted.

Instead, an everyday citizen use the courts to challenge something unfair.

" This is why it's really important that we have the separation of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary, so we don't have one influencing the other.

Let's do a quick check.

Miller versus the Prime Minister was important because why?

Is it A, the Prime Minister was right and he can do what he wants, B, the Prime Minister was wrong and Parliament must be respected, C, Miller was wrong and she had no right to challenge the government?

Pause your video and choose the correct answer now.

The correct answer is B.

Let's do another task to put this into practice.

I'd like you to give two reasons why an independent judiciary is important, maybe thinking about some of the examples we've looked at in this section.

Pause your video and have a go at this now.

I asked you to give two reasons why an independent judiciary is important.

You might have said: An independent judiciary is important because it ensures that the government does not have too much power.

For example, in the Miller versus Prime Minister case, 2019, the judges ruled that the Prime Minister's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful.

This shows that judges can challenge the government and make sure it follows the law, which ultimately protects democracy.

Another reason is that it ensures fair trials for everyone.

If judges are independent, they're not influenced by politicians or powerful people.

That means that they can make unbiased decisions based only on the law.

This means all people are treated equally and their rights are protected, not based on status.

Well done if you included some of that in your answer.

Last, we're going to think about how can citizens challenge unfairness.

People have the responsibility to challenge things which are wrong or unfair.

This helps make things better for everyone.

In the case with Gina Miller, she used the courts in order to challenge the decision that was made by someone in a position of power.

But on a community level, we all have a responsibility in order to do the same.

Even on a small scale, people can take action.

An example of this could be: students have started petitions against school uniform policies that treat people of different sexes differently.

They argue that these rules are unfair and do not support equality.

On a larger scale, people might protest, start petitions, or even take the government to court to challenge unfair decisions.

It's important that everyone has the chance to speak up and challenge unfairness, because this helps to uphold the rule of law.

Even something that is on a smaller scale is feeding into the same principle.

Let's do a quick check.

True or false, someone can only challenge unfairness when it involves the government?

Pause your video and decide if you think this is true or false.

Can you also have a think about why you've chosen that answer?

The correct answer is false.

Unfairness can be challenged wherever it occurs.

People can challenge the government, public institutions, and each other when they see something is unfair, but it's important that this is done correctly.

Following Stephen Lawrence's murder, his mother, Doreen Lawrence, campaigned for justice.

She recognized that racism played a part in the police's actions following the murder of her son.

She worked with the media to raise awareness of the issue.

She met with politicians, and she pushed for a public inquiry.

The MacPherson Report highlighted that institutional racism played a part.

Without Doreen Lawrence taking on this work, it might have taken even longer for justice to be served.

Following Stephen Lawrence's murder, his mother, Doreen, campaigned for justice.

The outcome of this resulted in improving policing for all.

It meant that the police were held accountable for failures in Stephen's case.

Doreen was later appointed to the House of Lords to further influence government policy.

Another quick check.

How did Doreen Lawrence challenge unfairness?

Did she, A, work with the media to raise awareness, B, go on hunger strike, C, become an MP, or D, give up and not challenge unfairness?

Pause your video and choose your answer.

The correct answer is A.

In 2019, when the Prime Minister made a decision to pause the Parliamentary session to avoid a debate on Brexit, Gina Miller recognized that this was wrong.

Since the UK has an uncodified constitution, sometimes these decisions are not straightforward.

An uncodified constitution is a constitution that is not written down all in one place.

This is different to countries that have a codified constitution, whereby it's written down.

The UK's constitution being uncodified has advantages and disadvantages.

One advantage is that it can be changed.

However, a disadvantage like in this case is that sometimes these decisions aren't completely straightforward.

Gina Miller wanted the court to make a decision on whether this was right or wrong.

Miller recognized that to challenge the government, she would need to go to court and seek the opinion of judges.

Since our judiciary is independent, they're able to make impartial decisions, even when it involves the government, meaning they won't be influenced or subject to bias.

Miller won her case and this made it clear that the Prime Minister could not override Parliament.

Instead, Parliament must be given an opportunity to debate and vote on the important issue of Brexit.

This was important for democracy, as MPs are the ones elected to represent the views of citizens.

Let's do a quick check.

How did Gina Miller challenge unfairness?

A, she worked with the media to raise awareness, B, she went on hunger strike, C, she became an MP, or D, she asked the court to review the government decision?

Pause the video and choose your answer.

The correct answer is D.

Now we're going to do another task to put this into practice.

I would like you to evaluate the above statement, considering both sides of the argument.

Write a paragraph on each side using some of the information we've spoken about.

The statement you'll be evaluating is: "Citizens can't change things, they can just protest.

" Pause the video and have a go at this now.

I asked you to evaluate the statement: "Citizens can't change things, they can just protest.

" You might have included some of the following.

On the one hand, it could be argued that citizens are limited to protesting.

Protests allow people to raise awareness and show dissatisfaction, but they don't always lead to immediate change.

For example, some protests may be ignored by those in power, so citizens might feel powerless.

However, there's evidence that people can do more than protest and can successfully challenge unfairness.

One example is Miller versus the Prime Minister in 2019.

A citizen took the government to court.

The judges ruled that the Prime Minister had acted unlawfully, showing that citizens can use the legal system to hold the government accountable and bring about change.

This goes beyond protest and demonstrates the power of the rule of law.

Another example is the work of Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the MacPherson Report.

Doreen Lawrence did not just protest, she campaigned persistently, worked with the media, and pushed for a public inquiry into her son's murder.

This led to major changes in policing, and exposed institutional racism.

Her actions show that citizens can influence the system and achieve long-term change through determination and different methods.

In conclusion, while protest is one way for citizens to express their views, it's not the only method, and it's often just the starting point.

Citizens can also use the courts, campaigns, and media to challenge unfairness or injustice and create real change.

Therefore, the statement is not convincing because it underestimates the power that citizens can have in society.

Your conclusion might have looked slightly different to mine.

Today we have been thinking about what threatens the rule of law.

We have learned that abuse of power can undermine everyone following the law.

Laws applied unequally may reduce fairness and trust in the system.

Weak judicial independence threatens impartial decision making, and barriers to justice prevent people from challenging unfairness.

That's the end of today's lesson.

Thank you for joining me.