4.1 - The Supreme Court And The Legislative And Policy Making Processes Flashcards
(23 cards)
What is the purpose of the Supreme Court
- designed to end the fusion of powers at the highest level of UK judiciary
- create greater-transparency, and bring the UK more into line with other western countries
- the intro of the Supreme Court also changed the role of the lord chancellor, with its only remaining function being cabinet minister, supervising the legal system
How was the Supreme Court introduced to England, and what did it mainly change
- established by constitutional reform act 2005, opened in October 2009
- no longer the House of Lords in control, ended control of the ‘law lords’, known as the appellate committee of the HOL
- the countries highest court now independent of parliament
- changed role of lord of chancellor to only one of its previous 3 functions, being the cabinet minister and supervising the legal system
- Lords is chaired by the Lord speaker, chosen by peers, judges selected by an independent judicial appointment commission
What is the role of the supreme court
- there are 3 separate systems. One for England + wales, Scotland, NI
- Supreme Court acts as a final court of appeal for rulings made by lower courts, as well as a final court of appeal for criminal cases, only apart from Scotland
What is the composition of the Supreme Court?
- 12 members, although all cases are heard by an odd number for a majority to be reached
- most senior figure is the president, Lord reed from 2020, currently only 2 ladies, lady rose, lady simler
How is a member of the Supreme Court nominated and appointed?
- a justice will usually have served for 2 Years, or be a qualified lawyer for last 15.
- when a vacancy occurs, nominations are made by an independent 5 member select commission, with the president and deputy president of the court, member of judicial appointments commission, member of an equal body for Scotland and NI.
- The lord chancellor either confirms, or rejects the nomination, appointment then confirmed by PM, then by monarch
What are the key operating principles of the Supreme Court
- judicial neutrality: no personal bias
- no conflicts of interest: judges mustn’t be involved in a case involving family, friend, associate
- public activities: must avoid political activity
Whats an example of How neutral the Supreme Court is
- of the 12 justices, only 2 women, only 1 in the case of Radmacher v Grantino (2010). The only women justice (Lady Hale) was only justice to dissent from majority verdict.
- majority of the justices were privately educated and went to Oxford or Cambridge (don’t know the problem with this that’s just woke)
What is the definition of judicial independence/neutrality
- principle that judges must be free from political interference. People must know they will receive impartial justice and judges need to be confident they can make a decision without fear their career prospects will suffer
- they do this by staying out of public light, can’t campaign for anything political, and cases are published for people to read and scrutiny, published on YouTube
What are the terms of employment of a Supreme Court justice
- judges can’t be removed from office unless they break the law,money limit in service is an official retirement age which is 70, for those appointed since 1995, judges won’t be prosecuted for anything said (freedom of speech)
- paid from an independent budged known as consolidated fund
What influence does the Supreme Court have on the executive and parliament
- Supreme Court interprets the human rights act from 1998.
- Supreme Court is limited, as it cannot strike down laws, and there isn’t a codified constitution.
- however it has judicial review
How has the creation of the Supreme Court changed the role of the Lord Chancellor
- prior to the 2005 constitutional reform act, chancellor had 3 roles, overseeing the legal system, chairman of sittings in the HOL, and head of judiciary appointing other judges
- the constitutional reform act removed the legislative and judicial role, and lord chancellor is now just a gov minister,with the HOL now chaired by the Lord speaker
What is
-
How has the Supreme courts neutrality been questioned in relation to its composition
- extremely narrow composition in terms of gender, age, education, class has led to concerns over how it affects the neutrality of it
How can the creation of the Supreme Court be seen as challenging parliamentary soveriegnty
- as the law lords in the HOL are no longer the UKs final court of appeal
- the increased independence of the court was designed to make it more effective at holding the gov to account
- however the SC could still be legally abolished/reformed under a simple act of parliament
How has the supreme courts neutrality been questioned in relation to Brexit
- after the high court ruled in 2016 that the consent of parliament was needed to trigger article 50 to officially start the process of Brexit, the daily mail claimed the SC were ‘enemies of the people’
- after SC ruled in 2019 that BJs prerogation of parliament was unlawful, some cons described the SC as ‘arch-remainers’
How is judicial independence safeguarded in the SC
- security of tenure: can’t be removed unless breaking the law, retirement age of 70, freedom of speech
- Pay can’t be manipulated by gov, currently at bat 226k a year
What role does the SC play in relation to the human rights act
- ensures legislation passed is compliant with the HRA, and can declare acts of parliament incompatible with the HRA and urge them to change it
What are the arguments which suggest the SC has limited influence over the executive and parliament in relation to the HRA
- Whilst it can declare acts of parliament as incompatible, they have no legal power to compel parliament and gov to change the act
- SC can easily be repealed by a simple act of parliament
What are the arguments that the SC has significant influence over the executive and parliament in relation to the HRA
- parliament has a joint committee on HRA to scrutinise bills and ensure they are compatible. EG A v Secretary of State for home department, the anti terrorism, crime and security act 2001 was deemed incompatible with article 5 and 14 of the HRA, leading to the act vein amended in 2005
What’s an Eg of judicial review
- Miller v the Prime minister
- when Johnson attempted to prorogue parliament, SC ruled it was unlawful, reversing the action and reinstating parliament - Miller v sec of state for exiting of European Union
- Gina Miller argued the Scottish gov couldn’t hold a referendum without using article 50, parliament giving approval, with an 8-3 majority arguing the Scottish gov couldn’t hold a referendum
What arguments are there that the SC has become too politicised
- Recent high profile cases on Brexit and Scottish independence have made court more high profile and politicised, no longer anonymous
What arguments are there the SC hasn’t become increasingly politicised
- Neutrality and independence of SC are well protected, and since leaving the EU, SC has no power to strike down laws passed by parliament
How does the SC judicial review powers allow it to deflate the actions of the gov as ‘ultra virus’
- has power to ensure the gov hasn’t acted beyond the authority given to them by the law in ultra-virus cases (means beyond the law)
- if gov has been deemed to go beyond the law, SC can sanction the gov and force them to reverse their action
