Supreme Court Flashcards
(21 cards)
What cases does the supreme court hear?
-Only UK wide court, final court of appeals for rulings made by lower courts
-Judging whether the government has acted ‘ultra vires’, as was the case in 2019 Prorogation of Parliament Case
-Judging whether devolved bodies have acted within their powers
-Judging whether acts of Parliament contravene the HRA
Composition
12 members, however cases are heard by an odd number justices so that a majority verdict can be reached
-Have to have served as a sernior judge for 2 years or been a qualified lawyer for at least 15 years.
-Judges have to retire from court once they reach 70 years old
Unrepresentative
In terms of the current 12 justices:
-11 are male
12 are white
11 have studied at Oxbridge
All are over 60
How they are chosen
new Supreme Court Justices are nominated by an independent 5-member Selection Commission.
-Lord Chancellor then either confirms or rejects the nominated judge, can only reject nominations 3 times before they have to choose one
-Appointment then confirmed by the monarch
Judicial Neutrality
Idea that judges will exercise their functions without being influenced by their own personal bias or political opinions
Judicial Neutrality safeguarded
-Judges traditionally remain anonymous, rarely speaking out and avoiding comments about government or their rulings
-Judges arent allowed to campaign for political parties or pressure groups
-Judges have to base each decision in law and provide a full explanation
-Supreme Court decisions published in full
Judicial neutrality questioned in relation to composition
-Limited perspectives and inability to fully udnerstand certain issues/the situations of certain indviduals
-Former President of the Supreme Court Lady Hale aruged that it is imporant the public can look at the judiciary and see them as their judges, rather than ‘beings from another planet’
Radmacher v Granatino 2010
Case involving prenuptial agreement between marriage partners, majority of the justices upheld the principle that claims made in the event of divorce should be limited.
Lady Hale, the only female judge, was the only one of the 9 judges to dissent from the majority verdict, claiming that the precedent created would cause mostly women to lose out.
Judicial Neutrality Brexit
-After High Court in 2016 that the consent of Parliament was needed to trigger Article 50 to officially start the process of Brexit, the Daily Mail ran the headline ‘Enemies of the People’, suggesting they were defying democracy
-It has been suggested that the Supreme Court judges were influenced by their personal political views on Brexit, rather than being neutral
Judicial Independence
-Judges must be free from political interference, especially from the government
-Important in ultra vires cases involving the state.
Security of Tenure
Judges cant be removed from office unless they break the law or are impeached by a vote in both chambers
-Only limit is the official retirement at age 70
-Judges immune from legal action arising from any comments made on cases
Pay
Judges salaries paid automatically from an independent budget known as the consolidation funds, which cant be manipulated by the government.
Current salary of justices are over 200k, decreases chances of bribes
Sub Judice Rules
-Prevents members of parliament, government ministers and the media from publicly speaking about impending or ongoing legal proceedings
-Prevents the media and politicians from influencing the outcome of court cases
Interpreting HRA
-Ensures all legislation passed by parliament is compliant with HRA
-Although the court cannot compel parliament, it can urge them to change acts by declaring them incompatible with HRA
Judicial review and ultra vires
-If a government is judged to have acted ultra vires, the supreme court can sanction the government or force them to reverse their action
-The Supreme Court can therefore strike down secondary legislation and laws passed down by devolved bodies
Judicial review importance
-Exaggerated, majority of cases are in relation to local authorities, whilst only 10% against the government manage to win
-Some cases are of great importance, such as the 2019 prorogation case.
-The Supreme Court had greater powers under the EU as it could strike down laws passed by parliament or government when either branch had breached EU law, which took precedence
2019 Prorogation Case (Miller v The Prime Minister)
-2019, Boris Johnson prorogued parliament
-Critics argued that this was intended to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s Brexit plans and to make it harder for parliament to block a no-deal Brexit
-Court unanimously ruled that the prorogation was unlawful, reversing the prorogation and reinstating parliament
-Argued it undermined parliamentary sovereignty if prorogation was used to prevent Parliament from exercising its legislative authority
2016 Article 50 case (Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union)
-Miller argued that the gov couldnt give notice of Britains intention to leave the EU without parliament giving its approval
-8-3 majority, court decided against the government, arguign the process of leaving the EU would involve the removal of rights conferred by parliament, thus it had to give its consent
Arguments that the Supreme Court has too much political power
-Interpreting law can be seen as quasi-legislative, problematic as Supreme Court is unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative
-However, it can be argued that this is unavoidable as long as they are asked to carry out the law and that the court is politically neutral and independent
Arguments the court has become increasingly politicised
-Declarations of incompatability with HRA, asking the court to judge the merits of legislation rather than ensuring it is effectively implemented
-High profile cases on Brexit have made the court more politicized, with judges no longer as anonymous as they used to be.
-Some have argued that the article 50 and prorogation case were examples of the supreme court interfering too much in politics
Arguments that the supreme hasnt become increasingly politicized
-Appointment process is transparent and less open to political interference, neutrality and independence safeguarded
-Since the UK has left the EU, court has no powers to strike down laws passed by parliament
-Recent high profile cases are not an example of supreme court interfering in politics, rather are examples of the government acting ultra vires.
