scotuk 2 mine Flashcards
(15 cards)
constitutional reform act 2005
new supreme court to replace the law lords
ended the fusion of powers, before it was the appellate committee of the house of lords
legal system si not unified but SC is only UK wide court
opened october 2009
ultra vires example
Miller c Sec of State 2017 and 19
judicial review
power to declare a “declaration of incompatability” , NON-BINDING RULING, which reccomends parliament to review laws as they dont align with HRA 1998
eg R v Sec of state for international development 2018 made decl of inc = led to change in law to alllow civil partnerships for heterosexuals
can also conduct judicial review on broader grounds, such as illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety,
declarations of incompatability stat
since 1998, 17/34 decl have led to change, they are not binding as parliament is sovereign.
president of supreme court
Lord Reed, most senior figure
apptment of sc
5 member selection commission made up of most senior judged in uk
nominations then passed to justice secretary who can reject
monarch then officially appoints
how does govt retain power in the apptment of sc judges
justice secretary does not need legal background but has a say
eg 2016 Liz Truss was a justice secretary
how is judicial independece maintained 8
- no more fusion of powers with HOL
- physically separate, in the middlesex guild hall
- salaries not det by parl instead reccomendation of the senior salaries fund = current salary at 226K
- since 1701 act of settlement, judge can only be removed thru resolution between houses, no fear of losing jobs
- apptment is not by parl
- only limit on service is age - at 75 MAX you retire
- cant be party member
- sub-judice rules prevent MPs, ministers and the media from publicly speaking about impending or ongoing court cases.
how is judicial neutrality maintained 4
- judges cannot campaign for political parties/ pressure groups
- have to give an explanation of how they reached decision, published to the public
- to get on the SC must have been a senior judge for 2 yrs and lawyer for 15 eg lord reed prsident had been senior judge from 1998
- conflicts of interest are stopped.
problems with judicial independence 2
- SC becoming more high profile, incl brexit cases (millers) and 2025 case For Women Scotland vs Scottish ministers
= justices have thus lost anonymity they used to ohld, pressure on the court - ruling the rwanda plan was illegal under domestic and international law led to criticism from key members of tories (sunak called it a “foreign court” = flouts sub-judice laws as minsiters attack justices
problems with neutrality 2
- SC has a very narrow class, age, gender composition limits perspectives and neutrality to all experiences. = 10 are male, 11 are white and 11 studied at oxbridge, all 12 are over 60 - described by the times as “pale, male and stale”
shown in Radmacher v Granatino in 2010, involving prenuptual agreements where it was ruled that claims made in the instance of a divorce should be limited, yet Lady Hale was the only one to dissent and argue the verdict would disproportionately affect women + better addressed by parl not an unrepre court
SC influence on other branches
- significant power over common law despite being unrepresenatative radmacher v granatino 2010
- influence with declarations of incompatability - R v sec for international development 2018
A v Se of state declared some of the anti-terrirosim act was incompatible = amended in prevention of terrorism act 2005 - ultra vires rulings eg miller + reverse actions of democraticratically elected bodies eg 2024 Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Case
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Case 2024
SC ruled conservatives had broken the law in 2023 and 23 by approving new oil and gas projects, revoking the approvals for the project until properly considered
SC does not have too much power
- despite being unrepresentative, there is neutrality enforced + must be experienced - snr judge 2 yrs lawyer 15. unelected nature is importatn to hold govt to account
- decl of incomp is not binding , parl doesnt need to act 17/34
Illegal Migration bill 2023 accepted it would be incompatibel + can sudestep rulings Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 + bychanging law - ultra vires isnt too much power, simply a safeguard
2022 second referendum case, SC ruled in favour of the govt that the 1998 scotland act was ultra vires in unilaterally legislating for a 2nd referendum
parl power to change laws to evade judicial review
government can change laws if it is causing a supreme court ruling
eg passed the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 by using parliamentary sovereignty to enact legislation that deems Rwanda a “safe country,” overriding the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that the policy was unlawful due to refoulement risks. (risk of immigrants being persecuted)
