Public Law and Human Rights

• If there is not enough space in the street while applying for the license.
• If the trader wants to trade for fewer days than minimum required trading days.
• If the applicant has done any previous offence 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 have failed the way of using previous street trading license.

The evaluation of the process shall be done on the grounds if there is any refusal exists, the council may give the license for fewer days than requested or mat allow to trade in certain items only (Stein, 2017). The council will either grant the license or serve the notice to the applicant within the 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 right act was passed in the year 1998 and it defends the right of the pubic against the act done by public organisation including the government, police and local councils. They make the laws to treat every citizen equally with fairness and dignity (Skogly, 2012). This act protects, the right to life, right to fair trial and no punishment without law, right to trade for livelihood. If the public authority has interfered with any of the rights recognised 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 who 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 thePublic bodies such as central government and local bodies have to obey some laws and the laws that governs them is known as Public law. It covers all the matters of law that arises 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 courts order 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 has 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 for judicial review on this matter. The court didn't gave him the proper justification or the grounds of 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. As street trading is one of the major way of living the life and earn his livelihood. It cannot be refused to give the license because of any insufficient grounds of refusal (Sikkink, 2014). The fact also includes that new policy has been adopted by the court which suggest that anyone convicted of a criminal offence should not be given a license andhaving an unspent conviction will not necessarily be a bar to success and applications will be dealt with on a case to case basis. As Harry was doing the business ethically and was performing his trade in good manner so as to live his living since 10 years. As the tribunal didn't gave Harry proper reasons for its decisions the human right of Harry has been deceased. As it involves the human right of Harry so it should be taken into consideration to give him the licence. The undisclosed judgement is not correct and Harry can go for judicial review.

QUESTION 2

In UK supreme court gave a statement of Incompatibility under human rights act 1998, founded that 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 made to introduced to permit same sex of couples to come into civil partnership lawfully. This law gave them some rights that they can 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 differentiated.

The question that came in front of court is that,to decide whether this law was discriminatory among the 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 for the functions of women. Alternatively they wanted that they can move into civil partnership.

The UK authorities recognized the law as it is prejudiced, but they wanted more sufficient time so that so as to eliminate the discrimination that has arose. 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 human rights.

In this case the court held that it was unwilling to make the statement of incompatibility under section 4 of Human Rights Act 1998. This was argued that court has been refrained from doing this, so the parliament should change this law and court should not change this as this involves social policy (Shelton, 2015). It was founded that courts should not make a declaration where they find it incompatible, the circumstances where it is not appropriate to do so the court should not reserve. As the court didn't took the final analysis and declare the incompatibility it would put the political pressure on authorities.

The court declarations to unwillingness to declare incompatibility in this case can be contrasted with their unwillingness. They sought judicial review of the respondents continuing decisions to no to make alteration in civil partnership act so that they let different sex couples to get in civil partnership (Power,2013). Here the codefendant accepted that there is an difference of treatment between same sex and homosexual couples and this difference breached article 14. The co-defendant also accepted that the difference requires the consideration from the date it first began.

The reasons that supreme court gives for the judgement in this case was that it decided not to abolish same sex civil partnership and also not to extend them to different sex couples. It was also decided that further investigation was required and the authorities concluded that it should not take the concluding decisions on future of civil partnership until the societal attributes does not become clearer. The consideration of the government failed to bring the consensus of to how and the legal position of the partnership should change.

It has to go through the four stage test to find out whether intervention with ECHR right can be justified or not. These four phase are:

• A legislative subjective sufficiently crucial to justify limiting a fundamental rights.
• The measures that has been planned to meet it rationally are affiliated to it or not.
• Is they are not more than or they are essential to fulfil it
• if this strike a fair equilibrium between the rights of the individualist and the interests of society.

This case involves that it is not tolerance of discrimination. The government should work into eliminating the inequality of the treatment immediately. This can be finished either by establishing the civil partnership or by instantly extending them to various couples. If the authorities had chosen any of the alternative, this would have been empirically achievable then research would have influenced its extended term decisions as to what to do with the civil partnership (Ostrom, et. al., 2014). Even if the intervention with the litigator rights in this case could be attentive as a lawful aim, the justify balance among the rights and the interest of the society has not been affected. The interest of the society that does not want to marry are unspecified. As in the case if one of the couple dies before the get married then they will lead to serious financial disadvantage. So there is no end point to for this type of treatment.

This should be notable that the a statement of incompatibility does not stimulate the authorities. The court should not feel restrained about devising such a statement (McDougal, et. al., 2018). Therefore the court made a declaration that they prevent a different sex couple from entrance into a civic partnership and are contradictory with the article 14 taken in simultaneity with ECHR.

Get online assignment help from the experts of Assignment Desk!

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded by the report that street traders who want to trade on the street should take the licence from the tribunal and should apply for the renewal of the licence after every year. The tribunal cannot deny the licence on the ground that it is not clear. Tribunal should consider while giving the decision as the public law or the human rights are not affected. It is also concluded that courts should not decide on the incompatibility of the case. If it involves the public right and affects the society as a whole. The considerable time should be taken so that the decision is done in the way that does not harm the society and has positive impact on it.

You May Also Like:

Aspects of Contract and Negligence Regent College Level 4

Conjunction Of Business And Corporate Law

Intellectual Property Law In India

Law : Comprising Legal Issues

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit