Needless to say, their only recourse was to the European Convention. Even if we had a more enlightened Parliament which was more sensitive to human rights, it would continue to delegate massively broad powers to public authorities. Other modern democracies recognise this and alongside a Bill of Rights they have a code of administrative law to guide the judges in monitoring the use of these powers and administrators in exercising them. Most breaches of civil rights and liberties in the UK do not occur because of the spite or ill will of Parliament, Government or civil servants. The pathology of human rights violations in this country involves uncontrolled administrative discretion.
Public officials find that power is delightful and absolute power, absolutely delightful.
Parliament gave wide discretionary powers to Ministers to block proceedings in industrial tribunals on grounds of national security and deprive people of their right to access to justice. Similarly, the Home Secretary has wide powers to ban broadcasts on any grounds he sees fit and to regulate discipline in prisons. Faced with this huge gap in the legal protection of human rights, British courts behave in what some would regard as an impeccably democratic manner - careful not to trample on parliamentary sovereignty, they give public authorities the benefit of the doubt, unless they behave so outrageously in defiance of logic or accepted moral standards as to have taken leave of their senses. Except where European Community Law can come to the rescue, or where there is specific UK human rights legislation, such as the anti-discrimination laws, British law is ethically aimless. There are no coherent standards to guide the judges when they interpret acts of parliament or develop the common law.