1
The Rule of Law
Student Name
Professor
Course
Institution
Date
2
Part 1
The rule of law is frequently described as a specific ideology whereby all judicial systems
should strive (Radin, 2017). All legal procedures may be judged independent of their substantive
goals. It is especially true of "formal" notions of the rule of law, which focus solely on formal
documents and the processes for enacting and applying legal laws. Traditional ideas are
frequently portrayed as politically apolitical. More precisely, they are stated to represent the
minimum requirements for a judicial framework to be legitimate yet being agnostic to the
substantive goals that law may accomplish.
Substantive theories, on the other hand, are often seen as building on the formal or
operational constraints of formal approaches by constructing a set of fundamental privileges that
have been shown to be predicated on, or deduced from, the principles that support the rule of law
and that actually impact and confine the substantive goals of regulation. The rule of law is a
fundamental aspect of ordinary law in British constitutional law. It is increasingly employed in
appellate judgments to determine specific categories of inquiry and legitimize the functioning of
judicial review more broadly.
The idea, in particular, includes both formal and substantive components that the
legislature is supposed not to violate. The government must always be considered not to legislate
in violation of the rule of law unless it is an explicit provision to the contrary. And the rule of
law establishes minimal constitutional and statutory criteria of justice. Three significant
differences can distinguish formal and substantive notions of the rule of law: Formal ideas have
no bearing on legal content, whereas substantive concepts have (Young, 2012). While
3
substantive conceptions imply regard for particular legal persons' rights, formal notions do not;
standard images do not link legalities with fairness, whereas substantive conceptions do.
Outline

Introduction; the definition and understanding of the rule of law and its
importance to the law enforcement of the United Kingdom

The interpretation of the rule of law according to Dicey’s perception and the
possible proposition in the scope of statuary law.

Recap and assessment of the Colston case in Bristol town court, focused on the
actions of the accuses during the Black Lives Matter protest in June 7th 2020 in the town
of Bronston.

The law; the analysis of section 1 of the criminal damage act of 1971 that the
accused were charged for breaking

The law; analysis of section 5 of the criminal damage act of 1971 that defines
‘legal excuses’

Examining of the Colston case using the perspective of the rule of law with regard
to Dicey’s interpretation of the rule of law.

Conclusion; the assessment of the outcome of the case after prosecution with
respect to the rule of law.
4
Part 2
One of the main aspects in settling the constitutional accord in the United Kingdom is the
senior law enforcement officer's dedication to law enforcement. We will applaud this devotion to
the rule of law for providing the adversary with a degree of freedom and diversification that is
enjoyed by other free nations across the globe (Bingham, 2008). For the first time, the law is a
strategy frequently utilized by rulers of irrational and dictatorial attitudes as a reference for
individuals to follow the laws enacted by administrations and be penalized for noncompliance.
True, we are all required to follow the law, and the law can be described as what we are required
to follow, even if the violation is a federal crime. But, with widespread support, the rule of law
encompasses much more. For starters, it says that the state must follow the law, which is
something that many leaders overlook. The law expressly states that choices impacting people's
lives, liberties, and aspirations must be made in line with clear, correctly drafted statutes and
must be announced publicly, without discrimination or speculation by any inattentive minister or
authority. The law is satisfied if these guidelines are followed.
Despite the fact that the law is one of the most significant constitutional elements in the
modern constitution, its interpretation is not always precise, and it can mean different things to
different individuals at different times. We'll concentrate on Dicey's interpretation of the Rule of
Law in this situation. Constitutional law, according to Dicey, means that no one can be punished
or made to suffer physically or financially until there is a clear breach of the law as defined by
the law in the usual courts of the land (Santoro, 2007). Furthermore, it indicates that every
official, from the prime minister to the tax collector, is liable to the same liabilities as any other
person who does something without a legal basis. With this in mind, Dicey proposes three
interpretations: first, the complete scope of the statutory law, as contrasted to the influence of
5
irrational power, which excludes the presence of a significant range of free will. Second, the
statute law of the land results in the equitable subordination of all portions of the statutory law
and, ultimately, the constitution. People's liberties are safeguarded by autonomous judicial
procedures rather than contractual commitments.
The Case
In early January 2022, the Colston Four case was finalized in Bristol Crown Court. The
case focused on the actions of four people during the Black Lives Matter protest that took place
on June 7, 2020, in Bristol. That day, there was a protest in the City Center. A group of people,
including four defendants, demolished a statue of Edward Colston at its memorial. The statue
was engraved rolled to and from the port, where it was thrown into the water. There was damage
to the statue, paving slabs, and metal in the harbor. Edward Colston was a Bristol-born ship
merchant who was heavily involved in the slave trade in the late 1600s with the Royal African
Company. At the time, Colston was an influential figure in Bristol. In more recent times, his
statue was the subject of a long-running campaign by Bristol residents to remove Colston-based
annihilation references that still existed throughout the city. The four were charged with damage,
and it was the prosecutors' case when Graham, Ponsford, and Willoughby overthrew Skuse's
statue, which overturned in the harbor. The estimated cost of damage to the model was £ 3,750,
£ 2,400 for pedestrian damage, and £ 350 for metal injuries. The four were acquitted of a
criminal offense by a judge at a public hearing.
The Law
Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 creates a criminal offense: The first
section indicates that an individual who disparages assets that belong to some other individual
6
without a plausible reason, with the attempt to dismantle or damage that asset, or by carelessness,
shall be held accountable if the property is lost or destroyed (Grevling, 2020). The second
portion indicates that a person who damages or destroys without legal justification, or destroys
any property, whether his own or that of another - intended to ruin or destroy any property or
negligence in respect of any property which will be destroyed or damaged; and intentionally
damaging to the life of another person or neglect in that the life of another would be in danger;
will be found guilty. This second section protects 'legal excuses.' it means that if a person is able
to prove that they have a valid excuse to take direct action, they can still defend themselves
against the crime of criminal injury.
Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act of 1971 defines 'legal excuses' for the purposes of
the Act. Both sections a and b mean that a person is considered a valid excuse, if they committed
the crime at the time of the alleged Act or Act, they thought that perhaps the individual or
individuals suspected of having the authority to agree to the crime (Tamanaha, 2004). Whether
the destruction to the item in question was actually admitted, or even whether he gave consent to
it if they were aware of the impact of harm and its circumstances; or if it damage property,
devastates, or tries to destroy the asset in question, or, if accused under section 3, meant to use,
generate, or allow the use of an entity to damage or destroy, in needed to shield their asset or the
other, or a right or legitimate interest which they believe they and they thought - at the time of
the occurrence of actions suspected of causing the offense - that the ownership, privilege, or
concern was urgently needed to be protected; and that the safeguards accepted or proposed to be
adopted were appropriate or reasonable in all circumstances.
What is important is to prove or contradict the person's attitude causing the damage. If a
person claims to have a sincere and sincere belief that he has valid excuses and the judges
7
believe them, then they will be released. It does not matter if the legal argument is justified, as
long as the belief is maintained honestly.
The Legal Positions
In examining the case using the Law Act from the point of view of criminal law,
prosecutors wanted to prove that the four committed the criminal damage to the image. The rule
of law requires everyone to respect the rules of the constitution, and the Criminal damage act is
one of the rules to follow (Robinson et al, 2019). According to Dicey, no one can be punished for
violating a law established in the ordinary course of court proceedings. In this case, it was a clear
violation of the law. Prosecutors have presented their case with eyewitness testimony and
evidence that the four perpetrated the crime, including CCTV footage of the torn image and
telephone evidence showing some of the defendants later arguing that they had pulled down the
image. Evidence shows the role played by each of the defendants in grinding the image and
rolling in the water in the harbor.
The prosecution case was that the significance of the statue, Colston's history, and the
general sense of community surrounding the image and Colston were insignificant in the facts
before the judge. Ponsford argued that his involvement was only to provide the straps that were
attached to the neck of the image individually and to help pull it down. Willoughby argued that
his involvement was to put ropes around the neck of the statue but denied that he had pulled the
strings. Graham argued that his participation was to provide cords used to pull the figure down
and assist him with pulling ropes. Skuse admitted that he had rolled the statue into the water after
being overthrown. The defendants did not dispute the facts of the prosecution's case but argued
that they had 'legitimate reasons.' The prosecutor had to contend that the defendants had
8
legitimate grounds for vandalism. Defendants have made the following legal excuses;
appropriate powers used to prevent crime; and believing in the owner's consent. They also say
that conviction would be a gross violation of the defendants' rights.
Prevention of crime
The suspects allegedly used sufficient force to prevent crime, as permitted under section
3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. The charges were: display of an abusive image and in the eyes
of the person who may have created it. The judge had to make sure that the defendants were
acting genuinely and trustworthy manner (even if that was a false belief) that they were
preventing crime. The judge also had to prove that the force used was 'reasonable' in the
circumstances as the defendants believed they were. In fact, the defendants had to exercise good
power over their actions while maintaining true integrity and honesty. The belief that they
prevented crime (or crime) from being committed. Prosecutors said the statue was not abusive
and disrespectful and that the Bristol City Council committed no crime for continuing to display
it. They said the defendants did not believe they were preventing crime. Instead, they were
enforcing their intentions as they were fed up with the ongoing debate over the image. The
prosecutor said that even if the judge believed that the exhibition was a crime and that the
defendants honestly thought that they had acted to prevent the charges, it would not be as
reasonable as the procedure, in a place where concerns about this image could be handled.
9
Reference
Bingham, L. (2008). The Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament?. King's Law
Journal, 19(2), 223-234.
Duff, A. (2009). Legal and moral responsibility. Philosophy Compass, 4(6), 978-986.
Grevling, K. (2020). Damaging property. Criminal Law Review, 6.
Radin, M. J. (2017). Reconsidering the rule of law (pp. 37-76). Routledge.
Robinson, A., Marchment, Z., & Gill, P. (2019). Domestic extremist criminal damage events:
behaving like criminals or terrorists?. Security Journal, 32(2), 153-167.
Santoro, E. (2007). The Rule of Law and the “Liberties of the English”: The Interpretation of
Albert Venn Dicey. In The Rule of Law History, Theory and Criticism (pp. 153-199).
Springer, Dordrecht.
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2004). On the rule of law: History, politics, theory. Cambridge University
Press.
Young, A. L. (2012). The Rule of Law in the United Kingdom: Formal or Substantive?. ICL
Journal, 6(2), 259-280.