UK Supreme Court Flashcards

Question

Example: R (Miller) v PM 2019

Answer 1

Johnson as PM could not prorogue parliament during 2019 to limit parliamentary scrutiny on Brexit, enabling Parliament to scrutinise bills. Parliament was recalled, Johnson had acted unlawfully and ultra vires. This case shows the power of the judiciary in standing up for parliamentary sovereignty over executive overreach. The Daily Mail labelled the justices as "Enemies of the People" showing an erosion of their anonymity and neutrality.

Answer 2

The Cnservative's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda (The Rwanda Bill) was declared unlawful, as it contravened international law and was incompatibale with the HRA. The government passed legislation in April 2024 (The Safety of Rwanda Act) to circumvent and ignore the court's rulings. However due to international and public pressure as a result of the SC ruling on rights, no planes ever set off to Rwanda.

Answer 3

The UK Supreme Court unanimously held that deportation certificates issued by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for the Home Department were unlawful. The recipients of the deportation orders in this case were entitled to appeal against the Home Secretary’s immigration decisions by a judicial review procedure. However, the effect of the deportation orders was that the appeals could only be brought after the appellants’ removal from the UK. This was known as the ‘deport first, appeal later’ policy. The Court found that difficulties with evidence and legal representation meant these appeals were not sufficiently effective. It was a major blow to May's government.

Answer 4

SC ruled the baking company wee entitled to refuse a gay couples cake order and establioshed the ruling that people coul not be forced to promote a message that they disagree with.

Answer 5

The Judgment held that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, and clarifies that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. This comes to a blow to the sovereignty of Scottish ministers who have been campaigning to include trans women in their definition of women. It potentially points to an erosion of trans rights not being protected in single sex spaces , which trans rights activists are concerned about. It potentially shows how judicial neutrality is being infringed, as Lord Hoper assured that the ruling was not "a triumph of one group over another" yet For Women celebrated with champagne outside the court.

Answer 6

SC ruled that building a third runway at Heathrow would no break the UK's commitment to the Paris Climate agreement, and it comes to a blow at the efforts of the pressure group.

Answer 7

In R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council, the Supreme Court ruled that Surrey County Council's planning permission for a new oil well was unlawful because the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) did not adequately consider the downstream greenhouse gas emissions from burning the oil. The court found that the EIA should have assessed the full climate impact of the project, including the emissions from burning the oil. Therefore, showing the UK SC power in a quasi-legislative sense, as they were able to dictate council policy as the ruling had major repercussions of the final plan and its implementation.

Answer 8

On 23 November, the Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to legislate a second independence referendum. Following the Supreme Court decision, the SNP stated that it wanted to amend the Scotland Act 1998 in order to enable the holding of a referendum in 2023. It shows the SCs influence in determining sovereignty and interpreting the law, as they asserted that Article 35 of the Scotland Act did not encompass the right to call for a second referendum due to Westminster sovereignty.

Answer 9

Since its creation in 2009 as a separate institution under the Constitutional Reform Act, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has played an increasingly prominent role in protecting civil liberties and holding the government to account. Through the application of the rule of law, judicial review, and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, the Court has proved a vital mechanism in challenging executive overreach. However, its effectiveness is limited by parliamentary sovereignty, its lack of democratic accountability, and its inability to strike down legislation, leading some to question whether it can truly guarantee rights in a meaningful way. * **Ultra vires rulings / judicial review:** One clear area where the Supreme Court has demonstrated its ability to protect rights is through ultra vires rulings. These rulings allow the judiciary to check whether government ministers have acted beyond their legal authority. A landmark case was R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017), where the Court ruled that employment tribunal fees were unlawful because they restricted access to justice, a fundamental right. This judgment effectively removed the fees, showing how the judiciary can overturn executive actions that threaten citizens' rights. This case reflects the Court’s commitment to the rule of law, ensuring that the government acts within legal bounds. The Court also plays a significant role through declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, which highlight when laws conflict with rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. In R (F & Thompson) v Home Secretary (2010), the Court ruled that the indefinite inclusion of sex offenders on the register breached the right to privacy. Although such declarations are not legally binding, they often prompt legislative reform, thus indirectly protecting individual rights and reinforcing the Court’s role as a guardian of civil liberties. It protects the rights of Parliamentand protects their sovereignty from bing eroded by xecutive overreach * Ultra vires rulings: Furthermore, the Court has shown its willingness to uphold constitutional principles in politically contentious cases. For example, in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), the Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval, thereby upholding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and protecting the democratic rights of citizens. Similarly, in R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019), the prorogation of Parliament by Boris Johnson was found to be unlawful, preventing an undemocratic suspension of parliamentary scrutiny. These rulings underline the Supreme Court’s capacity to act as a vital check on executive power. The Belmarsh case (2004) (decided by the Law Lords before the creation of the Supreme Court) is another example where judicial intervention protected civil liberties. The Court found that the indefinite detention of foreign terrorism suspects without trial breached Article 5 of the ECHR — the right to liberty — forcing a review of anti-terror legislation. This case highlights the judiciary’s willingness to challenge even the most controversial aspects of executive power in defence of rights. However, the Court’s ability to protect rights is fundamentally limited. Unlike the US Supreme Court, the UKSC cannot strike down primary legislation. It can only issue declarations of incompatibility, which Parliament is under no legal obligation to act upon. This significantly weakens its ability to enforce rights. For example, in response to court rulings challenging its deportation plans — including the Rwanda asylum policy in 2023 — the government simply passed new legislation to override judicial concerns. This shows how easily Parliament can circumvent the judiciary, raising questions about the extent to which the Court can genuinely constrain the executive. Another key criticism is that judges are unelected, lacking democratic legitimacy. Critics argue that decisions on civil liberties should rest with elected politicians, not appointed judges. The Miller (2019) prorogation case led to accusations of political interference, with opponents claiming that the judiciary overstepped its constitutional role. Additionally, the judiciary’s lack of diversity and elite backgrounds may foster a conservative bias, potentially limiting their empathy with marginalized groups and undermining their neutrality in rights-based cases. Furthermore, proposals to repeal the HRA and replace it with a British Bill of Rights could reduce the judiciary’s ability to challenge government actions effectively. If successful, such reforms would restrict the courts’ use of the ECHR in rights protection, thereby undermining their current effectiveness. It is also important to consider external actors, such as pressure groups, in the protection of rights. Organisations like Liberty and Amnesty International frequently bring judicial review cases and raise public awareness of human rights violations, helping to ensure accountability. In many instances, it is these groups — not the judiciary alone — that initiate action. This suggests that the Supreme Court’s effectiveness is, at least in part, dependent on civil society mobilising to defend rights. In conclusion, the UK Supreme Court is partially effective at protecting the rights of citizens. Through ultra vires rulings, declarations of incompatibility, and high-profile constitutional cases, it can challenge government overreach and reinforce the rule of law. However, its effectiveness is constrained by parliamentary sovereignty, its lack of democratic accountability, and its inability to strike down legislation. While it plays an important role, it cannot fully guarantee rights without broader constitutional reforms or stronger legal protections. Ultimately, the UKSC remains an essential, though imperfect, pillar in the defence of civil liberties. Discuss pressure groups, parliamentary legislation in supporting rights

Answer 10

The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the UK and holds crucial power in influencing both the executive and the legislature. However, its increased public profile has led to allegations that the Court has overstepped its appropriate powers as an unelected body. By analysing its role in judicial review and checking government power, its protection of rights, and its function in interpreting legislation, this essay will ultimately argue that the Supreme Court is not too powerful for an unelected body. Rather, its rising public visibility has created the illusion of judicial overreach, while in reality, it exercises appropriate and necessary powers within the UK’s constitutional framework. * ** Judicial review:** Its power of judicial review, through which it ensures the government acts within the law, arguably gives unelected judges too much power to challenge a democratically elected government, which has a clear mandate and the consent of the people. Unlike MPs, Supreme Court justices are appointed rather than elected, and therefore lack direct democratic legitimacy. A prominent example is R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), where the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 and initiate Brexit without Parliament’s approval. It is logical to suggest this was judicial interference in a democratic process, especially as it followed a national referendum result in favour of leaving the EU, and therefore undermined the executive’s authority in implementation of the referendum’s outcome. Similarly, in R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and ultra vires because it prevented parliamentary scrutiny during a critical period in Brexit negotiations. The Court declared the prorogation null, forcing Parliament to reconvene, again perhaps suggesting direct political interference. * **Judicial review**: However, it is possible to argue that although the judiciary can rule actions unlawful, Parliament retains ultimate sovereignty and can legislate to override judicial decisions or enhance the powers of the executive. For instance, following the Miller rulings, Boris Johnson was able to sidestep judicial constraints by replacing the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (FTPA), calling an early general election, securing a large parliamentary majority, and proceeding with his Brexit agenda without further judicial interference. With R Miller vs Exiting the EU, May passed the EU (Notification of Withdrawla) act 6 ays after the ruling to initiate the Breixt process, to follow the SC ruling but slo to calleneg it? This shows that while the Supreme Court can act as a powerful check on executive action, its rulings can ultimately be bypassed by a determined government with sufficient parliamentary support. * **The SC is certainly not too powerful, as it still faces limitations of power by the executive in particular. ** * **Protection of rights**: It can be argued that the SC sometimes oversteps their infleunce in the process of protecting rights; this has only been enhanced sincethe 2000 implementation of the HRA where they can issues "declarations of incompatiablity" and block legislation. In the case of Abu Qatada v UK, the SC ruled it was unlawful to deport Abu Qatada to Jordon, on the basis that he risked being tortured there, and that evidence he was a terorsit had wurstionable elgitimacy due to being taken whilst he was in torture. This therefore emboldened the SC to protect the rights of terrorists, conflicting with the government prirotyi of national security. The Belmarsh case (2004), while predating the Court’s formal creation, saw the judiciary reject indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, finding it incompatible with Article 5 of the ECHR (the right to liberty). These cases demonstrate how the judiciary can challenge both executive power and flawed legislation in defence of civil liberties, reinforcing the rule of law and constitutional principles, jusged being increaingly activist. * **Protection of rights**: On the other hand, it can be argued that the SC powers does not adequately protect rights, as they face significant challeneg by the executive and conaititutional constraints. The UK Supreme Court’s ability to protect rights is limited by structural constraints, notably parliamentary sovereignty and its inability to make legally binding judgements over primary legislation. Unlike its American counterpart, the UKSC cannot strike down Acts of Parliament; it can only issue declarations of incompatibility, which the government is not required to act upon. This was evident in the government’s response to legal challenges over its 2023 Rwanda asylum policy. Although the Court raised serious concerns about the policy’s compliance with human rights, the government chose to bypass the ruling by passing new legislation, revealing how easily judicial decisions can be circumvented. Politicians have also discussed repealing the HRA of a British Bill of rights undermine SC power and erode their judicial independence. They sometimes ruling in favour of the government, shown with Begum. * **Although declarations of incompatibility are not legally binding, their rulings have persuasive authority, showing the Court’s indirect yet powerful influence on protecting civil liberties.** * ** Interpreting the law: **Another criticism concerns the Court’s democratic legitimacy. As an unelected body, it lacks direct accountability, which becomes controversial when they interpret the law in politically sensitive rulings against the democratically elected Commons. For instance, in Miller (2019), the Court’s judgment against the prorogation of Parliament led to accusations of political interference. In the case of Finch v Surrey County Council 2024, the Court found that the planning authority should have considered the indirect impact on the climate of an oil and gas project, having significant ramifications for the project. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s power to interpret legislation and set legal precedents through the development of common law gives it a quasi-legislative function. In R v Jogee (2016), the Court reversed decades of legal precedent on joint enterprise, significantly altering how secondary liability in criminal law is applied. Their ability to interpret laws and set binding legal precedents that influence future policymaking means they can shape legislation despite not being accountable to voters. This concern is heightened in the UK due to its uncodified constitution, where the separation of powers is less formally defined, and judicial decisions can have significant political consequences. * **Constraints of interpreting the law:** They can only interpret the cases given by them, and use the law, and not their political judgement. Ultimately, they base their judgments off of the law, and this can be circumvented by Parliament with a new piece of legislation (since statute law holds the greatest constitutional weight). They are selected using a meritocratic process by the JAC, and therefore they are legitimate in their own right, even without elections. It can be argued that the judges need a level of unaccountability to ensure judicial independence: if the judges were unelected then it would risk politicizing the law and violate the separation of powers established through the CRA 2005. It is also important to note how the SC does not have any more power than the Law Lords before 2009, but increased public awareness of it appears to show excessive powers when this is not the case. * Ultimately, the SC needs a level of unaccountability to maintain judicial neutrality and independence, and their role of interpreting the law can be overruled by an Act of Parliament. fINISH EDITING.

Answer 11

By analysing judicial neutrality, judicial independence and judicial review, this essay will ultimately argue that the UK is sufficianry neutral and independent tYEP WHEN i GET MY MCOK BACK.

UK Supreme Court Flashcards

(35 cards)