The Supreme Court Flashcards
(24 cards)
the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (comes into practise in 2009)
4 points
- Lord Chancellor title now goes to Justice Secretary, a minister in charge of justice policy
- Lords now elects own speaker
- A judge, Lord Chief Justice, oversees the judiciary helped by Judicial Appointments Commission largely independent of government.
- moved the law lords to a seperate building, the Guildhall, and enhanced their independence, creating the Supreme Court
role of the Supreme Court
4 roles
- highest court of appeal in the UK
- interprets were sovereingty lies between the executive and parliament
- judges whether government or other public bodies have acted ‘beyond their powers’ (ultra vires) - judicial review
- protects human rights
history of the supreme court and the legal protection of rights in the UK
- from the middle ages onwards local judges get in the habit of making judgements to give people rights and other judges follow, setting a precedent. these ‘common law’ judgements form the basis of UK protection of rights
- from the middle ages monarchs made top judges ‘lords’ and they sit in the House of Lords as the highest court of appeal.
- the monarch appoints a Lord Chancellor who has three roles: to advise the monarch i.e. be a member of the executive, to keep the lords in order i.e. be a member of the legislature, to be head of the judiciary branch.
how many SC justices are there including the president
12
as of 2024 how many women and men justices are there
2 women and 10 men
how are judges appointed to the supreme court
7 points
- an independent selection commission (the president, another senior judge not on the SC, representtatives of each of the judicialappointments bodies of England, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland - at least one non lawyer)
- vacancies always advertised widely despite not being required to by law
- the commission consults a number of senior politicians and judges across the UK
- based off merit
- after interviews a report is sent to the Lord Chancellor for their consideration, they can accept their recommendations, reject it or ask them to reconsider
- one other round of consultation with the senior politicians and judges
- PM and King give formal approval and PM’s office makes an announcement
how did the judges used to be appointed before the CRA
- senior judges were appointed by the PM and the Lord Chancellor (both party politicians)
- the top 12 judges were also made peers
reasons for having an independent judiciary
4 reasons
- without them there is a danger that the government will exceed its powers without legal justification
- prevents discrimination a government may committ for their own benefit and ensures cases will be dealt with on the basis of justice and the rule of law
- judges shouldn’t be influenced by short-term changes in public opinion as politicians are. they can consider long term issues
- also implies they are selected on a neutral basis
the four ways independence is maintained
- security of tenure - can’t be removed from the office on the grounds of the kind of decisions they make
- the rule of sub justice - it is a contempt of court for any servant of the government to attempt to interfere with a court case or even comment publicly or in parliament
- appointments largely independent of the government
- judicial pay - thei r salary is decided by an independent body (the Senior Salaries Review Body) to prevent the government influencing them monetarily
reasons for having a neutral judiciary
four reasons
- rule of law is one of the key principles of the UK constitution and democracy so cases must be considered equally
- they are only meant to interpret the meaning of the law, not the ‘fairness’ of it (unfair laws should be changed through parliament)
- in a democracy people should have faith that their cases will be heard on a fair basis without predjudice
- another way of ensuring their independence from political influence as their views won’t influence their decision-making in relation to the government of the day
the four ways neutrality is maintained
- rulings must be made on the basis of law - expain their decision in the ‘formal opinion’
- peer reviews- since there is no higher court of appeal, cases must be heard by at least give judges so no single predjudice is likely to affect the final decision, any decision must be fully explained to the other members of the court
- restrictions on group membership e.g. no joining political parties or other groups that may be a conflict of interest. would have to declare a conflict of interest and potentially recuse themselves from the case
- training and experience - all must have enjoyed lengthy careers as a lawyer and be highly trained so accustomed to the principles of being a justice
neutrality
in the way it hears and rules on cases - relates more to personal beliefs and attitudes rather than external influences
evidence that the SC has sufficient independence
7 pieces of evidence
- physically seperate as housed in the Guildhall
- salaries are not determined by parliament but off the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body
- security of tenure - can only be fired for personal misconduct and can’t be removed from office by government, retires at 75
- appointed at outside of parliament by a specially summoned five person selection committee and on merit
- when a case is being heard it is sub-judice
- both governments accuse them of being biased
- they have made decisions that are contrary to government interests under both labour and tory premierships
evidence that the SC has insufficient independence
3 pieces of evidence
- have been accused by both parties of being biased
- only been independent since 2009
- ministers can exert some small influence over appointing justices
evidence that the SC has sufficient neutrality
five pieces of evidence
- peer reviews mean one predjudice is unlikely to affect the overall decision
- must base decisions on the law and have to explain it in ‘formal opinion’
- must follow the rule of law
- experienced and well trained - must be neutral throughout their career to be recommended
- if there is a conflict of interest they must declare it and may sit out of the case
evidence that the SC has insufficient neutrality
three pieces of evidence
- from very narrow social backgrounds so may be biased by that
- some Conservatives claim the SC contains too many lawyers of a liberal disposition who tend to favour right sover state security and law and order
- lords Reed and Kerr both hold life peerages so will eventually enter the lords and may have some connections (currently disqualified though)
the SC’s ability to protect human rights
- since Blair passed the 1998 HRA, bodies can now be taken to court if they breach them
- however this didn’t authorise them to strike down westminster laws (can only morally condemn it)
- can strike down devolved bodies contradiciting rights and other bodies e.g. the NHS
- therefore this is a weak power
has rights protection increased in the 21st century
- since constitutional reform act, UKSC is more independent of government and parliament and therefore more likely to stand up for rights governement still controls judicial policy and the judiciary is potentially vulnerable to public opinion
- as long as the HRA stands, because it incoporates the ECHR, which can only be ammended by a unaminous European council, rights remain entrenched Blair passed laws which undermined the ECHR and many Tories want to leave it and replace it with a weaker Bill of Rights
UKSC’s power over parliament
can’t strike down act of the Westminster parliament but can morally condemn it
parliament’s power over the UKSC
can remove justices, although it has never happened
UKSC’s power over the executive
more power over executive as ministers are often practising actions authorised by acts but the SC can strike them down as ultra vires
executive’s power over the UKSC
executive dominates parliamentso coudl tell parliament to repeal CRA and HRA which weakens SC’s authority
presedence
whatever the SC does, the lower courts also have to do - their rulings set the standard/prescedent
judicial review
the SC judges whether government or other public bodies have acted ‘beyond their powers’ granted by parliamentary legislation (ultra vires)
