Evaluate The View That The Supreme Court Has Too Much Influence Over The Executive And Parliament.

Question 1

P1: Agree Unelected

Answer 1

1. Shouldnʼt be able to have significant influence in the political process because it is unelected and unrepresentative of the population.
2. Highly unrepresentative in terms of race, gender, class, education and age. Of the current 12 justices, 11 are male, 12 are white, 11 have studied at Oxbridge and 12 are
   over 60.
3. The fact that the court only had one female member was significant in the case of ‘Radmacher v Granatino’ 2010. It was a case involving a prenuptial agreement between
   marriage partners, in which a majority of the justices upheld the principle that claims made
   in the event of a divorce should be limited.
4. Lady Hale was the only one of the 9 justices to dissent from the majority verdict. She gave as her reason that the vast majority of people who would lose
   out as a result of the precedent would be women and argued that it may be better for
   Parliament to make such decisions where gender is a key element of the case,

Question 2

P1: Disagree Rules in Place To Represent

Answer 2

1. Supreme Court justices aren’t allowed to campaign for political parties or pressure groups.
2. Conflicts of interest are avoided by preventing Supreme Court judges from sitting on cases
   that involve family, friends and others they know personally.
3. Judges have to base each decision in law and provide a full explanation of how they
   reached it. Supreme Court decisions are published in full for people to read and scrutinise,
   whilst cases are televised on YouTube.
4. To get onto the Supreme Court, a judge has to have served as a senior judge for 2
   years, or been a qualified lawyer for at least 15 years and their elevation to the Supreme
   Court is based on their past performance and experience, in which they have been. President of the Supreme Court Lord Robert Reed, for example, has
   served as a senior judge since 1998
   neutral.

Question 3

P2: Agree Has Too Much Power In Interpreting The HRA

Answer 3

1. Al Rawi and others 2011 v The Security Service and others. Former detainees of the American prison Guantanamo Bay claimed that British security services shared some responsibility for their ill treatment. Gov said that the evidence of the heads of security should not be shown in public, in case it breaches national security. SC argues in favour of them.
2. HJ and HT v Home Secretary 2010. 2 men from Cameroon and Iran respectively claimed asylum in the UK because they were gay. Home O said they could conceal sexuality. Lord Hope said that it suppressed their ‘fundamental right to be what they are.’
3. AM(Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for The Home Department. 2020 SC blocked the HO deporting an individual who had committed several serious offences. Individual has HIV and their life would be shortened.

Question 4

P2: Disagree Parliament Is Still Sovereign

Answer 4

1. They have no legal powers to compel parliament and the government to change the offending Act of Parliament due to Parliament being sovereign.
2. Illegal Migration Bill, for example, was introduced by Home Secretary Suella Braverman on 7th March 2023 with a section 19 note stating that there was a likelihood the provisions with be incompatible with the HRA, still proceeded.
3. SC doesnʼt have too much power as Parliament could easily repeal/change the HRA if it wanted to

Question 5

P3: Agree Judicial Review

Answer 5

1. If the government is judged to have
   acted ‘ultra viresʼ, the SC can sanction the government or force them to reverse their action.
2. Boris Johnsonʼs government prorogued parliament, arguing that the prorogation was a routine one that ordinarily follows the selection
   of a new Prime Minister, but the Supreme Court disagreed and unanimously ruled that the
   prorogation was unlawful, reversing the prorogation and reinstating parliament.
3. 2024 Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Case, the Supreme Court ruled that the previous Conservative Government had broken the law in 2023 and 2024, when it approved
   new oil and gas projects Jackdaw and Rosebank without properly considering the full environmental impact. Revoked the approvals for the project, until the new government approved them again.

Question 6

P3: Disagree Judicial Review (Protect Parliament).

Answer 6

1. SC simply prevented Boris Johnson from avoiding parliamentary scrutiny through using the power to prorogue for the governmentʼs benefit, therefore legitimately upholding the sovereignty of Parliament.
2. 2022 Second Referendum on Scottish Independence Case, for example, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scotland Act 1998 doesnʼt give the Scottish Parliament the
   power to unilaterally legislate for an independence referendum. (Protect Parliament from devolved bodies).

Question 7

P3: Disagree Can Change Laws (Dissolution of Parliament)

Answer 7

1. Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which was introduced to repeal the
   Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, also included an ouster clause, which explicitly removed the SC power of judicial review in relation to the dissolution of P.
2. The law states that a court cannot question the exercise of the Prime Ministerʼs power to dissolve Parliament or the limit or extent of these powers. They are ‘non-justiciableʼ.

Question 8

P3: Disagree Judicial Review (Rwanda)

Answer 8

1. Government passed The Safety of Rwanda Asylum and Immigration) Act in April 2024. The act states that Rwanda must be considered a safe country for asylum seekers and that
   international law and the HRA must be put aside to allow for the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda, therefore removing the individual right to judicial review on these grounds.
2. Nov 2023 ruling that the governmentʼs Rwanda plan was
   illegal, citing risks of refoulement and inadequacies in Rwanda’s asylum system as major concerns. They argued that as a result, the policy was against the HRA and the 1951 Refugee Convention, as Rwanda couldnʼt be defined as a ‘safe countryʼ