Dicey's Criticism Of The Anti-Terrorism, Crime And Security Act

but justness of laws themselves. Even a very undemocratic nation can exist with laws that may not be just and fair.

Recently, there are several controversial Acts of Parliament which seem to have contradicted the second principle of the rule of law enacted during the decade. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 provide for confinement without charge or trial for non-British terrorist suspected of links with international terrorism. This is a specified law against the non-British people which contradict the second principle of the rule of law. Moreover, the Constable Protection Act, 1750 gave special immunity to police officers. Government officials enjoyed wide discretionary powers under the Public Health Acts to enter private properties.

Dicey’s third principle of rule of law although still very much relevant has its own loose ends. While it is recognized that legal recognition to rights of individuals provided by the common law is effective, but, there is a value in declaration of individual’s basic rights via a document such as Constitution and in creating judicial procedures for protection of those rights. Further, Dicey gave a one sided view because in England people have got many rights through the laws of Parliament and Charters issued by the Monarchs. Various public

Critics argue Dicey considered that discretion is inconsistent with the rule of law. As per them, Dicey failed to distinguish between discretionary powers and arbitrary exercise of discretionary power. Arbitrary power is always repugnant to the rule of law while discretionary power is not inconsistent with rule of law, unless exercised improperly. Even during his time there existed laws for Preventive detention, Emergency situation, Compulsory acquisition of goods and properties and empowered State to exercise discretion in a wide