The UK Supreme Court

Question 1

What has the UK government traditionally featured?

Answer 1

A fusion of powers where there is an overlap between the three branches of government

Question 2

Give an example of the UK government fusion of powers

Answer 2

Members of the cabinet can also be members of parliament

Question 3

When was the UK Supreme Court established?

Answer 3

Supreme Court was opened on 1st October 2009.

It was established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

Question 4

What was the Court designed for?

Answer 4

The court was designed to end the fusion of powers at the highest level of the UK judiciary.

Question 5

What was the UK judiciary before the supreme court?

Answer 5

Most senior judges - ‘law lords’- had sat as members of the House of Lords and were known as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.

Question 6

What was the previous role of the lord chancellor?

Answer 6

1. Cabinet minster supervised the legal system(executive)
2. Chairman of sittings of the House of Lords (Legislature)
3. Head of the judiciary, who appointed other judges (judiciary)

Question 7

What did roles the constitutional Reform Act remove from the Lord chancellor?

Answer 7

Chairman of sittings of the House of lords & Head of the judiciary

Question 8

How are Supreme Court judges selected?

Answer 8

Judges are selected by an independent judicial appointments commission

Question 9

What is the Supreme Courts role?

Answer 9

The supreme court is the only UK-wide court and acts as a final court of appeal for rulings made by lower courts

Question 10

What type of rulings does the Supreme Court reside upon?

Answer 10

Criminal cases
Civil cases
Matters of the constitution
Interpreting law passed by the EU

Question 11

Case study: The Supreme Court and the powers of the UK’s devolved bodies.

Answer 11

July 2016 - Supreme court overruled the Scottish government’s scheme to introduce the ‘named person service - planned to appoint state guardians, such as health visitors or headteachers to be responsible for the well-being of children - The Supreme Court ruled that legislation was in conflict with Article 8 of the Human rights Act ( Right to private and family life) - because it would allow public bodies to share personal information without consent

Question 12

How many members does the supreme court have?

Answer 12

12

Question 13

How many justices take part in cases at a time?

Answer 13

Always an odd number

Either 5 or 9 at a time

Question 14

Give an example of an odd number of justices hearing a case.

Answer 14

11 justices took part in the 2016-17 review of the High court ruling that parliament rather than the government should initiate the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Question 15

Who is the most senior judge?

Answer 15

The president - Lord Neuberger

Question 16

How many females are on the Supreme court?

Answer 16

1 - Lady Hale

Question 17

What backgrounds do Supreme Court justices usually come from?

Answer 17

They usually serve as a senior judge for 2 years or be a qualified lawyer for at least 15 years.

Question 18

How are nominations made?

Answer 18

Nominations are made by an independent five-member Selection Commission, consisting of the president and deputy president of the court, a member of the judicial appointments commission and a member of each of the equivalent body for Scotland and Northern Ireland

Question 19

How are confirmations made?

Answer 19

The Lord chancellor either confirms or rejects the person put forward.
The appointment is then confirmed by the prime minister then the monarch

Question 20

What are the two operating principles the Supreme court rests on?

Answer 20

Judicial neutrality & Judicial independence

Question 21

What is judicial neutrality?

Answer 21

The principle that judges should not be influenced by their personal political opinions and should remain outside of party politics.

Question 22

What is judicial independence?

Answer 22

The principle that judges should not be influenced by other branches of government, particularly the executive.

Question 23

State two ways the Supreme court shows neutrality

Answer 23

1. Conflicts of interest- judges must refuse to sit in a case that involves a family member, friend or professional associate, which may give rise to a judges detachment.
2. Public activities - judges may write and give lectures at functions as part of their way of educating the public but they must avoid political activity.

Question 24

Give an example of how the Supreme court shows its neutrality

Answer 24

Its website carries full details of its decisions, and the reasoning behind them, allowing for greater public scrutiny. The court welcomes visitors and its proceedings are televised over the internet.

Question 25

Why could the supreme court not be seen as neutral

Answer 25

As the composition is made of white, privately educated males with only one female - all but two educated at private schools - all but two attended Oxford or Cambridge.

Question 26

Give an example of how the supreme court shows it is not neutral

Answer 26

Case of Radmacher V Granatino(2010) - case involving a pre-nuptial agreement between marriage partners - a majority of supreme court justices upheld the principle that claims made in the event of a divorce should be limited - Lady Hale only one to dissent - said the likehood that the vast majority of people who would lose out as a result of the precedent would be woman.

Question 27

Why is judicial independence important?

Answer 27

Judges may be called to administer justice in cases where there is a conflict between the state and an individual. People must know they will receive impartial justice and judges need to be confident they can make a decision without fear that their career prospects will suffer.

Question 28

What are the three in-built guarantees of judicial independence?

Answer 28

1. Terms of employment -judges can not be removed from office unless they break the law - the limit on their service is the retirement of 70 - immune from legal action arising from any comments made on cases 2. Pay - judges salaries are paid automatically from an independent budget known as the consolidated fund without the possibility of manipulation of ministers 3. Appointment - The judicial appointments commission and selection commission for the supreme court are transparent in their procedure and free from political intervention.

Question 29

Give a physical example of judicial independence.

Answer 29

The supreme court is physically separate from parliament.

Question 30

Give an example of when the Supreme could be seen as not judicially independent.

Answer 30

On the subject of funding - spending cuts were imposed on the court system as part of the coalition governments strategy to eliminate the budget deficit - Lord Phillip argued independence was at risk unless it could allocate pre-set, ring-fenced funding - spoke of the ministry of justice 'tendency on part of the ministry of Justice to try to gain the Supreme Court as outlying part of its empire'

Question 31

How is the Supreme court in the UK limited in ways the US supreme court isn't

Answer 31

Supreme court does not have the power to strike down laws as there is no codified constitution against which the supreme court could test legislation against.

Question 32

How does the Supreme court check the executive and parliament?

Answer 32

Through judicial review - the court can inquire whether ministers have followed correct procedures in ways that they implement legislation. Through ultra vires - It can examine the actions of public bodies to investigate whether they have acted ultra vires - beyond their powers - whether they have gone beyond the authority granted to them in law?

Question 33

Case study: The right of sex offenders to appeal against registration for life, 21 April 2010 - SC against government

Answer 33

governments position - those who committed serious sexual offences in England and Wales must register with the police for life after being released from prison - Supreme court ruled that this breached their human rights and they have the right to appeal 15 years after leaving jail - angered government and police who argued dangerous criminals do not change their behaviour

Question 34

Case study: The case of Private Jason Smith, 30 June 2010 - SC in favour of government

Answer 34

Private smith a Uk serviceman died of a heart stroke on campaign in Iraq 2003 - family brought a case against the ministry of defence that authorities should have safeguarded him - the high court ruled in their favour - Supreme court overruled 6-3 - saying that the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Act did not extend to troops in combat situations

Question 35

Case study: The Al Rawi case and secret hearings, 13 July 2011 - SC against government

Answer 35

The case brought by former inmates of the Guantanamo Bay prison - claimed UK security services had contributed to their detention and mistreatment - security chiefs supported by the government said they must be allowed to give evidence in secret - Supre court rejected this saying it breached the right to a fair trial - each side must be able to see the evidence put before the judge.

Question 36

Case study: The HS2 rail link, 22 January 2014 - SC in favour of the government

Answer 36

Campaigners who were aginst governments plan to build a speed rail link from London to Birmingham - requested judicial review to investigate whether the protect complied with Eu environmental directives - Supreme court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that parliament had not reached a final decision on the scheme and so its merits remained open to debate.

Question 37

Case study: The supreme court and Brexit January 2017

Answer 37

Whether the government needed the authority of parliament to trigger the process of leaving the Eu - a case brought forward by businesswoman Gina Miller - saying prime minister could not take a such a step just by using prerogative powers - SC upheld an earlier ruling by the high court in Miller's favour - on the grounds that EU membership had introduced statutory rights in favour for UK citizens which only parliament could remove