The Rule of Law Andrew Eborn Steven Barrett A Pair of Briefs

Tom Bingham, a former British judge and law
lord, outlined eight principles of the rule of law in his book "The
Rule of Law." Here's a concise summary of those principles:

Clarity and Accessibility - The law must be accessible and, so far as
possible, clear and predictable.
Law Not Discretion - Questions of legal right and liability should
generally be resolved by application of the law, not by the exercise
of discretion.
Equality Before the Law - The laws should apply equally to all, except
where objective differences justify differentiation.
Exercise of Power - The exercise of powers by the state should be
based on authority that is legal, not arbitrary.
Human Rights - Fundamental human rights should be observed by the state.
Dispute Resolution - Means must be provided for resolving disputes
without undue cost or delay.
Fair Trial - The adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair.
Compliance with International Law - The state must comply with its
obligations under international law as well as national law.

Bingham's articulation of these principles serves as a benchmark for
evaluating how well a country adheres to the rule of law, emphasizing
the idea that law should govern society in a predictable and equitable
manner.

Arkell v Pressdram (1971)

https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)

Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) refers to an informal legal exchange rather
than an actual court case, centered around a libel claim involving the
British satirical magazine Private Eye, which was published by
Pressdram Ltd. Here's a summary:

Background: Private Eye published an article accusing James Arkell, a
retail credit manager at Granada TV Rental Ltd., of accepting illicit
payments.
Legal Threat: Arkell's solicitors, Goodman Derrick & Co., wrote to
Private Eye demanding a retraction, stating that Arkell's attitude to
damages would be determined by the nature of the magazine's reply.
Response: Private Eye responded with a terse and now-famous reply: "We
acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We
note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the
nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would
inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that
the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."
Outcome: Following this response, Arkell did not pursue the libel
claim further, effectively dropping it.
Legacy: This exchange has since become legendary in British legal and
publishing circles, often humorously cited as a shorthand for
brusquely dismissing unfounded legal threats with the phrase, "We
refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."

This incident is more of a cultural touchstone rather than a formal
legal precedent, illustrating a bold defense against what was
perceived as an unjust libel threat.