Relationships Between Branches Flashcards
What is the Supreme Court?
Established in 2009, the SC is the highest court of appeal in the UK. It has 12 justices, who comprise the most senior judges in the country and their judgement is of great political and constitutional significance
Why is the Supreme Court significant in terms of legislation?
They set legal precedents that can be referred to in subsequent cases and the legislation that parliament enacts, the lawsmeaning and relevance is worked out by the judges
What type of Law are Courts responsible for making?
Common Law
What was the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act 2005?
It was an act that removed the Law Lords from the House of Lords and in its place established the Sulreme Court, in order to allow for the separation of powers
What are key features of the Supreme Court?
- It is the highest court of appeal for all civil cases, and is the final court of appeal for criminal cases in the UK
- they are the final court of appeal when there is a review of how the government acted
- they have the authority to say whether an issue should be under control of Westminster or a devolved body
In what ways can the Supreme Court claim to be independent and neutral?
- since the Act of settlement in 1701, which established Protestant succession to the throne, a senior judge can be removed only by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. This means that they have security of tenure and cannot be removed from office by government alone. - meaning that judges can act accordingly to how they think the law should be interpreted without fearing consequence
- the constitutional reform act 2005 also made appointments more transparent through the judicial appointments committee which was established to select judges on their good merit and character as opposed to the Lord Chancellor advising the PM who to choose - which often led to an elite its jury
- when a case is being heard it is said to be ‘sub judice’, meaning that parliament cannot express an opinion as it would breach the separation of powers and undermine judicial independence.
What are the criticisms of the independence and neutrality of the S.C?
- members tend to be from an elite background and in 1977, John Griffith argued that socially and politically conservative judges always vote in favour of the status quo - such as Lord Denning, who sided with the government on several occasions
- the supreme courts composition is of people who have mainly been privately educated and attended either Oxford or Cambridge uni’s
- the government still retains some political influence over the appointments of justices, as the Select Committee still must pass their recommendations to the justice secretary, who can request further information and reject a nomination
What are key instances where the S.C has limited the power of the Exexcutive and Parliament?
- they can decide whether a public body (incl government) has acted beyond its authority
- they can declare when government has acted in defiance of the Human Rights Act
- they can determine the meaning of law as well as the government’s accordance with the law - through judicial review
What are key examples of Judicial Review, where the S.C had to judge whether the government had acted beyond its authority (ultra vires)?
- the Gina Miller case 2017 - on the 20th January 2017, the S.C by a majority of 8-3, upheld an earlier decision from the High Court, which stated that the government didn’t have the authority to take the UK out of the EU through the royal prerogative, because in 1972, to get in the EU it was parliament’s responsibility, hence it should be theirs to remove the UK
- Joanna Cherry/Gina Miller case 2019 - after Boris said he decided to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks in order to push through his Eu withdrawal proposals, Gina miller and SNP MP Joanna cherry brought this to court, saying this was unlawful as it limited parliament party sovereignty. Consequently, on sept 24th , 11 justices all said that PM had acted unlawfully
Al Rawi and others v The security Service and others (2011):
Shamima Begum (2021):
Scottish Parliament and Brexit (2018) (devolution case):
Named person Service (2016) (devolution case):
Poundland case (2013) (austerity case):
Bedroom tax and disabilities (2019) (austerity case):
What is a key case that cause tensions between the executive and the Supreme Court?
The Belmarsh Case (2004), in which the Blair government used the powers given to it by the anti-terrorism crime and security act 2001 to hold foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial. The Law Lords declared that this was discriminatory according to the ECHR because British terrorist suspects weren’t being treated in the same way. The government accepted the ruling and the detainees were released, however soon after, the government, using control orders introduced legislation in parliament to monitor the whereabouts of these suspects - showing the executives ability to sidestep the judiciary
What is an elective dictatorship?
In 1976, Lord Hailsham stated that the abi,its of a British government to dominate parliament meant it was essentially an elective dictatorship
How can parliament effectively hold the executive to account?
If a government only has a minority or a small majority, they will find it more difficult to pass legislature, especially if they cannot rely on the loyalty of its backbenchers, meaning both Houses of Parliament can become more assertive, and similarly, if the opposition party gain momentum and support, they can undermine the confidence of government
Why is Parliament ineffective at holding the executive to account?
- a government with a large parliamentary majority should be able to rely on the support of MP’s to pass the legislative programme it wishes
- the government can change law using secondary legislation, over which the HOC has less power of scrutiny
- the PM has extensive powers of patronage - government whips can offer backbenchers opportunities to join government in order to cultivate loyalty
- royal prerogative means the PM does not legally have to consult Parliament on the use of Military forces
- according to the Salisbury convention, the HOL shouldn’t attempt to stop gov. legislation because it would obstruct what the public voted for
Examples of weak Parliamentary influence:
- 1979-87 - Thatcher had a 140 seat majority which contrasted Labour who were split, and in 1983, following Michael Foot’s ‘suicide note’, and the victory of the 1982 Falklands War, thatcher increased her majority to 144 seats, and Neil Kinnock also was unable to challenge her policies in parliament
- in 1997, Tony Blair won a landslide majority (179 seats), and that party was completely united under his third way political philosophy, which contrasted the conservatives who faced EU divisions and weak leadership, and suffered their worst election result since 1832
Examples of strong Parliamentary influence:
- under Harold Wilson in 1974, they gained just a three seat majority, but when Callaghan took over in 1976, this disappeared and he was forced to establish a ‘confidence-and-supply agreement with the Lib Dem’s until 1978, and when this ended, Callaghan’s government lost a no-confidence vote (311-310)
- in 2917, after May called an election to try and win a larger majority, she instead was forced to establish a confidence-and-supply agreement with the DUP, and along with growing conservative divisions regarding Brexit and a strong Labour opposition, May suffered the worst parliamentary defeat in history on her first Brexit withdrawal
- in 1986, despite thatchers 144-seat majority, her government was defeated on the second reading of the shops bill as 72 conservative MP’s voted against it, similarly to how 99 conservative MP’s voted against Covid passes in 2021 - meaning Johnson had to rely on Labour support
Where has parliamentary debate been shown to be significant in influencing how MP’s vote?
In 2013, after Cameron proposed Military strikes on the Syrian government following its alleged use of chemical weapons- both sides in the HOC deployed compelling arguments; however the government failed to sufficiently prove its case and was defeated by 285-273 votes (thirty conservative and nine Liberal Democrat MP’s voted against government)
What are key reforms that have made the HOC and the HOL institutionally stronger in their relationship with the government?
- in 2009, a committee chaired by the former Labour MP Tony Wright recommended in its report how to ‘rebuild the house
- in 2010, the backbench business committee was established which allows backbench MP’s to determine the issues for debate for 35 days in parliament
- since 2010, the chairs of select committees has been elected via a secret ballot of MP’s, and the membership by a secret ballot of MP’s in a party. This contrasts the way in which they were elected before, where whips had selected chairs and membership
- the liaison committee consists of the heads of all select committees and regularly questions the PM, in a meeting in a restrained, non-partisan atmosphere, hence it can put the PM under more sustained scrutiny
What key convention has reduced executive authority?
The convention that The PM and government should consult with Parliament over the deployment of Military forces
