Supreme Court Flashcards
(7 cards)
E+A 3 ways the judiciary has become more powerful since 1998
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) - Gave UK courts the authority to review legislation for compatibility with human rights.
Judges can issue a “declaration of incompatibility” if a law violates the ECHR — not striking down the law, but putting pressure on Parliament to amend it. Empowered courts to hold the government accountable for breaches of human rights. Belmarsh (2004) – The Lords ruled that indefinite detention without trial under anti-terrorism laws was incompatible with the HRA.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a clearer separation between the judiciary, legislature, and executive. Removing the Law Lords from the House of Lords. Strengthened the independence of the judiciary from political influence. Gave the judiciary institutional autonomy. E.g. 2018 Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd
Judicial Review. Expansion in the scope and willingness of courts to review executive actions. Courts now regularly intervene in cases involving executive overreach, prerogative powers, and administrative decisions. Miller II (2019) – The Supreme Court ruled Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament unlawful.
E+A 3 ways judicial independence is maintained
2005 Constitution Reform Act enhanced judicial independence by abolishing the Law Lords, and moving the judges into a separate building. Eliminates overlap between branches, and diminishes chances of judges being influenced by what happens in parliament.
Their salaries are paid from the ‘Consolidated Fund’ which is an independent panel, entirely separate from the government. Not subject to annual review from parliament. Enhances separation of powers, decreases chances of corruption, more likely to challenge govt. E.g. Miller v PM, Johnson’s actions were rules “unlawful.”
Judges appointed by the JAC, which is an independent committee. Judges are not selected by anyone from the other branches of government, no fusion of powers.
E+A 3 ways the UK judiciary is criticised
Not independent. Judicial independence cannot be entrenched in the constitution because it is un-codified, and Parliament will always be sovereign - they can ignore Supreme Court recommendations/rulings. E.g. 2023 Rwanda Bill was declared ‘incompatible’ yet the government chose to go ahead with it
Not representative. Richard Scorer declared that decision making is often informed by a person’s background and around 70% of the Supreme Court judges went to Oxbridge. Cannot make decisions to benefit the people of the UK when they do not represent them.
Lord Chancellor can reject or ask the committee to reconsider a judge. No separation of powers BUT this has never happened
The UK judiciary is not independent or neutral
Not independent. Judicial independence cannot be entrenched in the constitution because it is un-codified, and Parliament will always be sovereign - they can ignore Supreme Court recommendations/rulings. E.g. 2023 Rwanda Bill was declared ‘incompatible’ yet the government chose to go ahead with it
Not neutral. Richard Scorer “decision making informed by a person’s background.” Around 70% of Supreme Court judges were Oxbridge educated, arguably represent the views of the state over the views of the minority. They are supposed to act within the public interest, but can they?
The UK judiciary is independent and neutral
Their salaries are paid from the ‘Consolidated Fund’ which is an independent panel, entirely separate from the government. Not subject to annual review from parliament. Enhances separation of powers, decreases chances of corruption, more likely to challenge govt. E.g. Miller v PM, Johnson’s actions were rules “unlawful.”
Neutral. Judges are chosen based on their merit and promotion to senior ranks is unlikely if you’re seen as ‘bias.’ Increase in the number of anti-establishment cases, proves that the judiciary can act against the government. E.g. 2010 Supreme Court forced the government to pass emergency legislation because the Treasury weren’t allowed to do it because there had been no vote
UK judiciary is the same and has not changed
Parliament is still sovereign, this restricts the scope of the judiciary’s powers. Supreme Court can declare an action ‘ultra vires’ but ministers can pass retrospective legislation to legalise it. E.g. Reilly v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2016
Judiciary is not representative. Around 70% were Oxbridge educated. Judiciary is not diverse, and is still viewed as polarising by many because of how exclusive it appears
UK judiciary has changed
Abolishment of Law Lords. Supreme Court judges can no longer sit in the Lords. This enhances the separation of powers and allows the judges to freely speak out against the government. E.g. Miller v PM 2019
Increased public profile of judges. Constant live X feed from the Supreme Court which allows for education. Appeals are heard in different parts of the UK to raise awareness nationally. E.g. In 2018, the Supreme Court travelled to Belfast
