11.1b Principles and Influences of the Supreme Court Flashcards
Principles: Judicial independence
Judicial independence is the principle that judges are free from political pressure because they are independent of the executive and legislature.
Judges are able to make rulings without external pressures, including having the security of tenure and an independent appointment and promotion process.
Members of parliament and the government are not allowed to comment on court cases which are taking place to prevent political influence over the court.
Principles: Judicial neutrality
Judicial neutrality is the principle that judges are politically neutral and do not get involved in any form of party politics.
Judicial neutrality is important because Supreme Court judges have to rule on political issues.
The Supreme Court rules on highly political cases including in 2012 when it allowed four Zimbabwean refugees to remain in the UK that the government wanted to be deported.
Principles: Neutral and independent
Supreme Court judges are neutral as they can not engage in political activity and publicly express their political views.
Judges are shortlisted by an independent selection committee, and the Government has limited say on who becomes a judge.
Supreme Court judges have the security of tenure which prevents the government from punishing judges based on their rulings.
The government can not comment on cases which are ongoing meaning that the Supreme Court makes independent decisions without the government intervening.
Principles: Not neutral
Judges are not balanced demographically, with the majority of Supreme Court judges being male, white and middle-aged.
The Supreme Court’s imbalance means that the court arguably lacks neutrality in its rulings.
A more representative Supreme Court would potentially make the court truly neutral, as there would be a range of viewpoints in rulings that judges make.
Principles: Not independent
The Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the executive, makes the final decision on appointments to the Supreme Court.
The Lord Chancellor’s role in appointments gives the government influence over choosing judges who are more likely to share similar positions to the government regarding key issues.
The Supreme Court does not often rule against the government in cases
This suggests a lack of independence in practice, and that the government has some influence over the Supreme Court.
Influences: Judicial review
The supreme court influences the executive and parliament through judicial review.
The supreme court only has limited powers of judicial review.
The supreme court can only overturn secondary legislation, and cannot overturn primary legislation (acts of parliament).
Influences: Ultra vires
The principle of ultra vires is when someone or something acts beyond their powers - acting without legal authority, despite requiring legal authority.
The supreme court can overturn legislation because of the principle of ultra vires.
In 2016 Chris Grayling was ruled as acting ultra vires when he introduced a “residence test” to the Legal Aid Act in 2012.
Influences: Opposing government decisions
The supreme court can make rulings based on the Human Rights Act, which oppose government decisions, particularly over issues of state security.
The court can also make a declaration of incompatibility. This means that it declares parliament’s legislation opposes the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Supreme court judges uphold decisions on information being published against the wishes of the government in cases over freedom of information.
Influences: Cases of opposing government
Declaration of incompatibility
In June 2018, the court issued a declaration of incompatibility on the Civil Partnerships Act
The court found the act incompatible with the ECHR because gay couples are allowed to marry or become civil partners, but straight couples cannot.
Freedom of information
In 2015 the court upheld a freedom of information request to publish Prince Charles’ letters to government ministers.
