Magna Carta and MePart 4 – The Rule of Law: The Principle That Changed the World

By Brian AJ NewmanLLB - Employment and Human Rights Advocate

There is one principle that sits at the heart of every genuine democracy. It is older than Australia. It is older than our Constitution. It is even older than the common law as we know it.

That principle is the Rule of Law.

It is a deceptively simple idea:

No person is above the law, and every exercise of power must be authorised by law.

Today, we often take that principle for granted. We expect governments to justify their actions. We expect employers to follow fair processes. We expect police, courts and public officials to act within the law.

But none of these expectations existed as a recognised constitutional principle before the events leading to the Magna Carta in 1215.

The Rule of Law was not created by the Magna Carta, but the Magna Carta gave it one of its earliest and most enduring expressions.

It transformed power from something exercised simply because someone was powerful, into something that required lawful authority.

That single shift changed history.

Magna Carta and MePart 4 – The Rule of Law: The Principle That Changed the World

Before the Rule of Law

Imagine living in England during the reign of King John.

If the King wanted your land, he could take it.

If he wanted to imprison you, he could imprison you.

If he wanted more money, he simply demanded it.

There were customs and traditions, but ultimately the King's will was often treated as law.

This wasn't simply poor government.

It was arbitrary government.

The Articles of the Barons were drafted because the King's behaviour had become intolerable. The barons were not demanding democracy in the modern sense. They were demanding something much more fundamental.

They wanted the King to obey the law.

Magna Carta Changed the Relationship Between Power and Law

Many people think Magna Carta was about rights.

It certainly contains rights.

But at a deeper level it is about something even more important.

It is about limiting power.

Perhaps the most famous clause states:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned... except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

The wording reflects medieval England and applied only to "free men" of the time.

However, the principle it introduced eventually expanded far beyond that narrow class.

Government itself became subject to law.

That idea became the foundation for:

• constitutional government

• parliamentary democracy

• judicial independence

• procedural fairness

• administrative law

• employment law

• human rights protections

Every one of these developments traces part of its constitutional ancestry to Magna Carta.

The Rule of Law Is Bigger Than Courts

Many people think the Rule of Law simply means having courts.

It doesn't.

History is full of dictatorships with courts.

The Rule of Law means something much deeper.

It means:

• laws apply equally

• laws are known

• laws are predictable

• laws are enforced fairly

• decisions can be challenged

• power has limits

Without those principles, law becomes nothing more than an instrument of power.

When governments can simply ignore their own laws, the Rule of Law disappears.

When employers ignore workplace legislation because they think nobody will challenge them, they abandon the Rule of Law.

When public officials make decisions without following mandatory procedures, they undermine the Rule of Law.

Law Must Be More Than Legal

One lesson I have learned throughout decades of advocacy is this:

Something can be technically legal and still profoundly unjust.

History provides many examples.

Slavery was lawful.

Racial segregation was lawful.

Women were once excluded from voting lawfully.

Many oppressive laws throughout history were perfectly valid legislation.

That is why the Rule of Law must always be accompanied by principles of justice, accountability and human dignity.

Law without justice simply becomes organised power.

Aboriginal Lore and the Rule of Law

In my previous article, I explored the distinction between Law and Lore.

Some readers asked whether Aboriginal societies had an equivalent concept to the Rule of Law.

I believe the old people did.

Not because Aboriginal Lore resembled English law.

Rather because authority itself was constrained.

No Elder simply created new Lore.

No individual stood above the Dreaming.

Authority existed only because Lore permitted it.

That is a remarkably sophisticated constitutional principle.

Where Magna Carta sought to place the King beneath the law, Aboriginal societies had long recognised that authority itself derived from something greater than any individual.

Whether one calls it Dreaming, Lore, ancestral obligation or Country, the underlying concept was similar:

Power was accountable to a higher law.

That idea deserves far greater recognition within Australia's understanding of its own legal history.

The Rule of Law in the Australian Workplace

People often assume the Rule of Law belongs only in constitutional law textbooks.

I disagree.

I see it every day.

Every unfair dismissal matter.

Every workplace investigation.

Every discrimination complaint.

Every bullying application.

Every adverse action claim.

At their core, they all ask exactly the same question:

Did the person exercising power do so lawfully?

• When an employer dismisses someone without following procedural fairness...

• When allegations are never properly investigated...

• When predetermined outcomes replace genuine decision-making...

• When retaliation occurs because someone exercised a workplace right...

The issue is no longer merely an employment dispute.

It becomes a question about the Rule of Law itself.

Because power exercised without accountability is precisely what Magna Carta sought to restrain over 800 years ago.

Why This Matters to Me

Throughout my career as an advocate, I have represented workers from every walk of life.

• Prison officers.

• Teachers.

• Police.

• Executives.

• Disability workers.

• Apprentices.

• Aboriginal workers.

• Migrant workers.

• Public servants.

• Private sector employees.

Regardless of occupation, the underlying issue is often the same.

Someone with power believes they don't need to follow the rules.

Sometimes they believe the ends justify the means.

Sometimes they assume nobody will challenge them.

History teaches us that power rarely restrains itself.

• People do.

• Communities do.

• Independent courts do.

• Advocates do.

The Rule of Law survives only because ordinary people insist that it survives.

Final Reflection

The Magna Carta was never really about medieval England.

It was about a timeless proposition.

Power without accountability eventually becomes oppression.

Law without justice becomes tyranny.

The Rule of Law reminds us that authority exists to serve the community—not the other way around.

Whether we are examining a King's conduct in 1215, a government department in 2026, or an employer conducting a workplace investigation, the question remains unchanged:

Who watches those who exercise power?

The answer given at Runnymede more than eight centuries ago still echoes today.

The law does.

And if the law fails, then it is the responsibility of ordinary people to insist that it lives up to its own promise.

Brian AJ NewmanEmployment and Human Rights Advocate Descendant of the Anaiwan, Wiradjuri and Ngarigo Peoples" Justice is not measured by the power of those who govern, but by the protection afforded to those with the least power."