No doubt that is its true that there must be a clear separation power to ensuure the liberty of the people are well protected as Av Dicey says that the 3 organs must be separated or else the liberty of the people will be at stake. It is a very soud principle in theory but how could this happend in reality, for example during Bill Clinton time the government has to shut down for 2 weeks cos the Congress refused to pass the financial bill and they rejected the health care progrmme introduced by Mrs Clinton. You can have a separation of power but on the other hand you will face the problem in adminsitration so in reallity there can never be a clear cut separation of power and please bear in mind the time where Bagehot and Dicey propounded the theory, the society and the political areana is totally different form the one we are at today.

Musharaf government cannot be considered as a democratic country and there can be no way of you comparing an anarchy system with a democratic country and for your information Musharaf govenment is not a legal governmrnt according to Han Kelsen theory ie the norm and the grundnorm. He doesnt have the mandate of the people in Pakistan and even the courts of law declares that his govenment is not lawful and one could not be able to trace the norm now. You will study more when u are doing your jurisprudence on your finals.

Hi Alex,

1. Parliamentary Supremacy is referring to the legislature ( or Parliament) which comprises of the Crown, the elected House of Common and the unelected House of Lords. So it is referring to both houses and also the Crown. This is because the main function of Parliament is to pass legislaction , ( Act of Parliament ) , and every Act of Parliament must go through the passage of debates and modification , starting from the House of Commons to the House of Lords and eventually to the Cr own for Royal Assent.

2. On the surface , the HRA 1998 may seems like a good protections to the right and liberty of the UK citizen. However, if you read the provisions in HRA properly , you will find that the protection is insufficient and weak. FOr example:

S 3 - provides that the courts is only obliged to interprete statutes in compatible with the convention rights "SO FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO" .

S4 - provides that if an Act of Parliament infringes certain rights protected under the ECHR , the court is unable to declare the offending Act invalid , the court merely allowed to make a "declaration of incompatibility" .

S4(6) - provides that the "declaration of incompatibility" does affect the validity of the offending Act.

Therefore, by making the imcompatibility, the court is hoping that the Parliament will amend the Act.

S 6 - states that "Public bodies" have to act in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. But please note that Parliament does not falls under the definition of" Public bodies" , hence the Parliament is free to pass any Acts of Parliament which can infinge the right of the citizens.

So how is HRA 1998 a sufficient protection ? Furthermore, HRA 1998 is merely an ordinary piece of legislation , it can be repealed at any time. If the conservative govt win in the next election , it can easily repeal the HRA , as HRA is not entrenched , and a parliament cannot bind its' successors