Lesson video

Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin, and I'm going to be taking you through this Citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be successful, and I'm also going to pause and tell you when to complete a check for understanding or a task.

I hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called What Does the Judiciary Have to Do With Human Rights? And it comes from the unit of lessons Synopticity: How Do Different Ideas and Concepts in Citizenship Interconnect? By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain how the judiciary can be seen to work both for and against human rights.

The ground rules for today's lesson are that we need 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, challenge the statement, not the person.

We need to respect privacy.

We can discuss examples, but do not use names or descriptions that identify anyone, including ourselves.

To choose level of participation.

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

We never put anyone on the spot.

And no judgments.

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

The keywords for today's lesson are judiciary, which is the branch of the state that is responsible for enforcing the law.

It is composed of judges and other legal officials.

Human rights, which are the basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to.

And court, which is a formal legal institution where disputes are heard and resolved, and where justice is administered according to the law.

Our lesson outline for What Does the Judiciary Have to Do With Human Rights is first we're going to have a look at how has the judiciary strengthened human rights, and then we're going to consider how has the judiciary failed human rights.

So let's start by looking at how it has strengthened human rights.

The judiciary refers to the entire judicial structure, including judges.

Judges play a key role in ensuring that citizens have their legal rights met.

In England and Wales, there are judges who oversee cases in crown courts, such as serious crimes like murder, magistrates or justices of the peace who oversee cases in magistrate courts, which is for lesser crimes such as drink driving, and civil court judges who oversee cases heard in civil courts.

So these are disputes related to rights such as divorce and neighbour disputes.

So Izzy's asking what is the link between the judiciary and human rights.

So pause and have a think.

What is the link between the two? The judiciary helps to protect human rights by interpreting laws in line with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, the ECHR.

Judges can also challenge unlawful government actions and have strengthened rights like privacy, equality, and free speech.

So there is a link between the two.

So Sam is asking how has the judiciary strengthened human rights, 'cause remember that's what we're looking at first.

So pause and have a think about that question.

The Human Rights Act 1998 allows UK judges to apply rights from the ECHR directly in UK courts.

Judges must now check whether laws or government actions respect a person's rights when applying the law in legal cases.

So let's have a check for understanding.

What has the Human Rights Act 1998 allowed UK judges to do to strengthen human rights? So think back to the previous slide.

The Human Rights Act 1998 allows UK judges to apply rights from the ECHR directly in UK courts.

In 2024, a disabled asylum seeker was forced to live in an unsuitable hotel room for seven months.

It was too small, had no accessible bathroom, and he couldn't use his wheelchair properly.

The High Court ruled that Croydon Council, who housed the asylum seeker, had breach his human rights under Article 3, protection from degrading treatment, and also Article 8, right to a private and family life.

This case shows how the judiciary can strengthen human rights and protect vulnerable people.

A key feature of the judiciary is equality before the law.

So you've seen that everyone is equal before the law.

And this is also a fundamental British value.

So this means that a defendant must not be subject to any discriminatory behaviour during the trial.

The trial should be based on facts alone.

And the court outcome must be solely based on that legal evidence and any cases of mitigation rather than any biases based on the defendant's race, sex, or other protected characteristic.

This key feature strengthens the protection of human rights in relation to discrimination.

The UK's legal system is also built on the basis that everyone has the right to an effective remedy if their legal rights are violated by the law or constitution.

So remedy means to make something right.

If you think about if you were poorly, you might have a remedy to make you feel better.

So remedy means to make right.

And this human right applies to not only victims of crime but defendants too.

Defendants may file a notice of appeal if they do not feel their case was heard fairly or their sentence is appropriate.

The appeal must be based on law and/or fact and can take place within both criminal and civil law.

And this feature of the judiciary ensures all citizens have the right to legal remedy.

Let's have another check for understanding.

Explain what is meant by equality before the law and effective remedy.

Equality before the law means that a defendant must not be subject to any discriminatory behaviour during the trial and that everyone must be treated equally and fairly.

And effective remedy means everyone has a right to have their case checked and potentially made right if their legal rights are violated by the law or constitution.

Arbitrary means for no good reason.

And human right laws protect people from arbitrary arrest and detention.

So this ultimately means that no one should be arrested and detained for no good reason, like on a whim.

Our judiciary ensures that not only can people only be arrested if there is credible evidence but also that the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS, will decide if criminal cases can be brought to court, and this will be based on evidence, which shows that there needs to be enough evidence for a case to go to court.

Detention, so prison, also follows strict guidelines, with judges referring to sentencing guidelines before deciding a fair prison duration and if the sentence is the most appropriate.

Public trials within our judiciary form a key aspect of defendants' legal rights as these ensure trials are open, making any corrupt or unfair treatment visible and accountable.

The judge will make decisions regarding who can sit in on a trial.

In most cases, family courts and youth courts are kept closed to protect the right to privacy, whereas other courts will normally have a public gallery.

Court listings are also made public and many outcomes are also published.

This ensures cases are not happening in secrecy.

So there's lots of human rights to look at there.

There's that fact that there's open and transparent cases but also that people's right to privacy are protected in vulnerable cases.

Judges will also ensure the judiciary strengthens human rights by explaining legal rights to defendants and making sure they understand what's going on, ensuring the defendant can fairly present their case, stopping any disruptions in the courtroom that might make the case unfair, stopping lawyers from asking misleading questions that could cause bias on the jury, stopping evidence from being used if it was obtained unfairly, is misleading, or could further cause prejudice, and also that they've actually got the ability to declare a mistrial or retrial if they believe the case has become too unfair to continue.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify three ways in which judges ensure the judiciary strengthens human rights.

So you could have said any three of the following: explaining legal rights to defendants, ensuring they can fairly present their case, stopping any disruptions, stopping lawyers from asking misleading questions, stopping evidence from being used if it was obtained unfairly, declaring a mistrial or retrial if they believe the case has become too unfair.

Judges also create common law in cases where there is no legislation covering a particular issue.

These judge-made legal decisions create legal principles that become law.

Common law allows judges to use their legal expertise to set legal precedent.

So this is a decision that then guides all future decisions, and it strengthens rights within the court system.

So an example of this is in regard to the law on joint enterprise.

So this law used to state that if someone was in the company of someone who committed a crime and they may have foreseen the crime happening, they were jointly culpable and could be treated for the same crime under joint enterprise.

So let's say, for example, two young adults have gone out and one of the young adults has assaulted somebody.

If there was reason to believe that the other adult thought that might have happened, like, they knew that they'd had an argument, they knew that person was angry, they could be culpable jointly.

However, judges decided that this law had been wrongly and unfairly applied and that a person can only be guilty of a crime committed by another person if they intended to assist or encourage it, not just because they foresaw it might happen.

So like the example I just explained, actually that would only now be joint enterprise if ultimately the other person was encouraging that person to do it or was helping them to assault the other person.

It is important to remember that the judiciary works to strengthen rights for both defendants and victims of crime.

Defendants have rights too.

They have the right to a fair and public trial, to appeal, they have the right to a defence, to be free from discrimination, and not to be found guilty unless there is sufficient evidence, and also that sentencing must follow sentencing guidelines and be fair.

And victims have rights.

They have the right to be listened to and to be understood, to have the process explained to them, to be kept informed of the case at all stages, to be compensated if that's applicable, and to have their victim statement taken into account at sentencing.

Let's have a check for understanding.

True or false.

The judiciary only aims to strengthen the rights of defendants.

Is that true, false, and can you tell me why? It's false.

And why? The judiciary also works to strengthen rights for victims of crime by ensuring they're listened to, have the process explained, and are well supported.

Civil courts are also an element of our judiciary.

And these work to ensure that citizens can seek support and justice when their rights have been violated.

Civil law strengthens the ability for individuals to resolve disputes and seek compensation for harm caused by others, often relating to their rights.

So even if someone is not guilty of committing a crime, they may still face a civil claim, which significantly strengthens the ability for citizens to have their rights protected within the legal system.

So an example of this is in 2019, when Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, made a civil case against the Mail on Sunday newspaper, stating that her rights to privacy had been violated when the newspaper printed a personal letter that she had written to her father.

The case was heard in a high court and judges decided that the Duchess of Sussex was right, that the letter was private and was not in the public interest.

There was no reason for the newspaper to print that.

Associated Newspapers, who were the owners of the Mail on Sunday, attempted to have the case appealed at the court of appeal, but this was unsuccessful.

Therefore, the Mail on Sunday had to write an apology and also issue damages, which in this case was monetary compensation.

These examples highlight the fundamental elements of how the UK's judiciary strengthens our human rights, both as victims or as suspects of crime.

This balance ensures that justice is served fairly and appropriately, with human rights guiding legal processes and procedures.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What are the missing words? The judiciary strengthens our human rights as citizens, both as something or as suspects of crime.

This balance ensures that justice is served something and appropriately, with human rights guiding something processes and procedures.

Let's see if you've got those missing words correct.

So the first one was victims, second one was fairly, and the third one was legal.

Task A, I would like you to write an opposing argument to the following statement, and I want you to try and use some of the examples that we've explored this lesson.

So the statement that you're going to oppose is, the judiciary does not play a significant role in strengthening human rights.

So pause and have a go at Task A.

So your opposing argument to the statement, the judiciary does not play a significant role in strengthening human rights, may have included the following.

I disagree with the statement.

The judiciary ensures that everyone receives a fair and public trial.

For instance, judges make sure trials are run properly, without bias, and that everyone is treated equally under the law, protecting their right to a fair trial and equal treatment regardless of background.

This helps prevent people from being wrongly imprisoned or unfairly punished.

Judges also use the Human Rights Act 1998 to protect individuals in other situations.

For example, in 2024, the high court ruled that Croydon Council had breached a disabled asylum seeker's rights by placing him in inhumane living conditions, showing how the judiciary can hold public bodies accountable and defend vulnerable people's rights.

You may have also included, judges are also responsible for appropriate sentencing.

This means they make sure punishment fits the crime and follows the law rather than being too harsh or too soft.

This protects both victims and those accused, ensuring justice is served fairly and not based on emotion or public opinion.

Finally, the judiciary helps strengthen rights by giving people the chance to take cases to civil courts when they believe their rights have been violated.

An example of this is when the Duchess of Sussex took legal action against a newspaper for publishing a private letter in 2019.

The court ruled in her favour, protecting her right to privacy.

This shows how the judiciary can strengthen citizens' ability to fight for their human rights.

So we've had a look at how has the judiciary strengthened human rights, now we're going to have a look at some examples of how the judiciary has potentially failed human rights.

There have also been cases or periods of time where some people have accused the judiciary of failing to uphold human rights.

So Andeep is asking, "Can you think of any cases or periods of time when the judiciary has been accused of denying rights?" So pause and have a think.

So when dealing with potential terrorism cases, this can cause complexities for the judiciary.

Terrorism poses a significant threat to people's lives and safety and must be dealt with seriously, but human rights are universal and still apply to suspects of crime.

So this is a really difficult balancing act.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York in 2001, the UK Government introduced the law that allowed foreign terror suspects to be held in Belmarsh Prison without a trial.

These people were detained for long periods without being charged with a crime or given a chance to defend themselves in court.

So Andeep is asking what was the public's reaction.

What do you think? So although there's an understanding about the seriousness of the crime, members of the public raised serious concerns about human right violations, especially the right to liberty, the right to effective remedy, and to defend yourself in court.

And many believed that this went against the basic human rights that shape our legal system, because, remember, these people had not been charged with a crime.

Eventually, in 2004, the UK's highest court at the time, the House of Lords, ruled that these detentions were unlawful.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Why was the treatment of terror suspects during the Belmarsh detention case seen by some as a failure of human rights? They were held without a trial, detained for long periods without being charged with a crime, and not given a chance to defend themselves in court.

In 2022, the then Conservative Government made a decision relating to immigration that was initially allowed by some lower courts but was viewed as being a violation of human rights.

So Andeep is asking what was it.

So it's 2022, a decision relating to immigration.

So what do you think it might have been? It was the government's plan to send those who entered the country irregularly to Rwanda.

This was aimed at deterring irregular immigration.

However, many people believe this could put vulnerable people at risk.

Critics said Rwanda might not be a safe country for everyone, and sending people there could lead to inhuman treatment, which goes against human rights, as well as affecting people's right to family life by enforcing separation.

In 2023, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the policy was unlawful, agreeing that it could violate human rights.

However, many people felt that the court should have acted sooner to protect the rights of asylum seekers.

So although that decision was made, some people felt it could have actually been made sooner.

So let's have a check for understanding.

Why was the Rwanda deportation policy seen by some as a failure of human rights? Let's see if you got that correct.

It could put vulnerable people at risk.

Rwanda might not be a safe country for everyone.

Sending people there could lead to inhuman treatment, which goes against human rights.

And people's rights to family life could be denied by enforcing separation.

These cases both examine how the rights of groups of people have at points been failed by the judiciary, although in both cases the courts did eventually rectify the human rights failure.

Other landmark cases have focused on an individual's human rights and how decisions made by the courts have failed to meet these rights.

And a well-known example of this is Tony Nicklinson's case about the right to die.

So Tony Nicklinson had locked-in syndrome, which is a syndrome that meant he was completely paralysed, so unable to speak, unable to eat, and his only movement was his eyes.

So that's how he communicated, with his eyes, using a specialist machine.

He described his life as a living nightmare and wanted to be allowed to end his life with medical help.

This case was really complex as although the judiciary sympathised with him, helping someone to end their life is illegal in the UK.

It's against the law.

And if you were to help someone to end their life, you've ultimately committed a crime.

In 2012, Nicklinson took his case to court, arguing that being denied the right to die was a violation of his human rights, specifically Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to respect for private and family life.

Nicklinson lost his case in the high court.

He later appealed to the Supreme Court, but they upheld the original decision, meaning that he was not allowed to end his life with medical help.

The judges said that making assisted dying legal would be a big change in the law and should be decided by parliament, not by the courts.

Sadly, Nicklinson died shortly after losing his case.

Some people disagreed with this decision as Nicklinson was denied control over his own life and death.

This complex argument is still being debated today in the UK.

This highlights how there have been specific cases or periods in political history where the judiciary has been accused by some of failing human rights when balancing these against legislation and government policy.

So a check for understanding.

Identify three cases or policies where the judiciary has been accused by some of failing to ensure human rights.

So you might have said the Belmarsh detention case, which was when terrorist suspects were being held, the Rwanda deportation policy, or the Tony Nicklinson assisted dying case.

For Task B, I'd like you to write another opposing argument, but this time to the statement, the judiciary only ever strengthens human rights.

So I now want you to write an opposing argument for this using some of the examples that we have explored this lesson.

So your opposing argument to the judiciary only ever strengthens human rights may have included: the judiciary does not always strengthen human rights.

There have been cases where courts have allowed laws or government actions that many believe went against basic freedoms. For example, in the Rwanda case in 2022-2023, the Government planned to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Many people said this could put them in danger and subject them to inhuman treatment.

Even though the Supreme Court later ruled the policy unlawful, earlier courts allowed the plan to continue for a time, which shows a lack of urgency in defending asylum seekers' human rights.

Another example is the Tony Nicklinson case in 2012.

Nicklinson had locked-in syndrome and wanted medical help to end his life 'cause he felt his life was a living nightmare.

He argued that being denied this choice went against his human rights.

However, the courts refused to allow assisted dying in this case.

This suggests that the judiciary sometimes avoids making difficult decisions even when someone's rights are at stake.

Lastly, in the Belmarsh detention case, the government detained terror suspects without charging them or putting them on trial.

This was a clear breach of their right to liberty and a fair trial.

Although the courts eventually ruled it was wrong in 2004, they had allowed it to happen since 2001, meaning people's human rights were not protected straight away.

So in summary of the lesson What Does the Judiciary Have to Do With Human Rights, there's a strong and important connection between the judiciary and the protection of human rights in the UK.

On the one hand, the judiciary strengthens human rights by ensuring equality before the law, fair and public trials, and appropriate sentencing.

They also allow citizens to defend their rights through the civil courts.

However, there have also been cases where the judiciary has been accused of failing human rights, such as the Rwanda deportation policy, the treatment of terror suspects in the Belmarsh detention case, and the case of Tony Nicklinson.

That brings us to the end of the lesson.

Well done for all of your hard work.

And I hope that you'll come back for some more Citizenship lessons in the future.