4. relations between branches Flashcards
who is in the supreme court
- the Lord Reed of Allermuir (president); past experience as senator of the college of justice, inner and outer house
- Lord Hodge (deputy president)
- Lady Rose of Colmworth (the only woman): lady justice of appeal and justice of the high court
what is the Supreme Court
- the highest court in the UK
- acts as the final court of appeal in cases of major public importance
- there are 12 justices
key supreme court cases
- R (Nicklinson) v. ministry of justice (2014)
- Miller v. secretary of state for exiting the European union (2017)
- UK withdraw form the EU (Scotland bill) (2018)
- HM treasury v Ahmed (2010)
R (Nicklinson) v. ministry of justice (2014)
- do individuals have the right to die (assisted suicide)
- the court supported the government position arguing that article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR could be used to overturn the suicide act 1961 as a means of justifying assisted suicide
Miller v. secretary of state for exiting the European union (2017)
- Gina Miller argued that the UK government could not trigger article 50 (to leave the EU) without a vote or deliberate debate in parliament
- David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, argued that the government’s use of the royal prerogative meant that parliament need not be consulted
- the supreme court found in favour of Miller, arguing that as referendums are non binding, the government could not ignore the sovereignty of parliament
- the commons duly had a vote on triggering article 50
UK withdraw form the EU (Scotland bill) (2018)
- the scottish parliament sought to reaffirm rights on agriculture and fisheries that would return to the UK from EU control following brexit
- the UK government argued that these areas were outside the remit of the scottish parliament and should fall under the jurisdiction of the UK government
- the court found in favour of the UK government, arguing that the bill went beyond the powers of the scottish parliament
HM treasury v Ahmed (2010)
- the government wished to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists
- the court ruled that the government did not have the legal power to do this, as it infringed the presumption of innocence inherent in common law and the human rights act
- they said the government has acted ultra vires
- however, Gordon Brown’s government passed the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010, which bypassed that supreme court ruling
a successful decade for the supreme court
- the supreme court should be judged as a success as it has effectively defended the rule of law
- however, unlike the US supreme court, which can strike legislation down as being unconstitutional, the UK supreme court can only advise the government that its actions are incompatible with the law
- parliament remains sovereign, so can technically ignore supreme court judgments
- but no government wishes to appear above the law, so governments have always respected the ruling of the supreme court
Factortame (1991)
- the high court rules that the UK merchant fishing act was in conflict with the EU fisheries directives
- the UK law was set aside, establishing the principle that EU law supersedes UK law
- the supreme court is limited by the precedence set by higher courts
- its independent - ruled against the government
Michael Douglas v. hello magazine (2001)
- the EU court of human rights ruled that Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones had the right to not allow unauthorised photos of their wedding to be published under the right to privacy
- judiciary follow acts of parliament
- rights of the individual one being upheld
mental health act case (2002)
- the UK mental health act required that a person detained with mental illness had to prove their own fitness to be released
- the courts rules that this contradicted the human rights act’s individual right to freedom
- under the change, a patient has the right to freedom unless they are a risk to public safety
- judiciary claims that the rights lie with the individual, upholding civil liberties
Belmarsh case (2004)
- the house of lords rules that detainees held against their will under their will under the anti terrorism legislation contradiction of the human rights act on the grounds that citizens have the right to not be detained without trial
- example of the supreme court acting against the government
- acting without bias in a time where fear of terrorism was prevalent
the office of fair trading v. Abbey national and other (2009)
- the supreme court ruled that the office of fair trading had no power to investigate the banks’ system of charging customers for overdrafts which limited the governments control over the banks
- shows neutrality
- went against the judges own personal views
suspected terrorist bank assets (2010)
- the supreme court ruled that the government did not have the legal power to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists
- this forced the government to pass special legislation to give them this power
- the supreme court is restricted by the power of government as a result of parliamentary sovereignty , parliament don’t have to follow supreme court ruling
Radmacher v Granatino (2010)
- the supreme court ruled that pre nuptial agreements can be enforced in UK law
- example of disagreement within the judiciary
- the one who voted against was the only woman and the only expert in family law (Lady Hale)
- issues of neutrality
the judiciary does successfully defend civil liberties
- the constitutional reform act (2005) gave senior judges the independence to protect our rights - stronger separation of powers, brings greater legitimacy encouraging the judges to be more active in challenging the government and defending our rights
- the supreme court issues declarations of incompatibility when laws undermine human rights
- judicial reviews allows judges to examine whether officials have acted within their powers
- UK citizens have successfully defended their rights at the ECHR - under article 46 of the ECHR the UK is required to implement its judgments
- judges have proven increasingly willing to publicly speak out on human rights issues
the judiciary does not successfully defend civil liberties
- judges cannot be proactive, they have to wait for cases be brought before them
- parliament has proven reluctant to follow some verdicts from the ECHR
- parliament could theoretically repeal the human rights acts
- parliament remains sovereign and can pass new legislation if found to have acted ultra vires
- parliamentary sovereignty limits the impact of these declarations
- supreme court can not strike down laws, like equivalent courts in other nations - UK has an uncodified constitution
what is the Supreme Court
- the highest court in the UK
- acts as the final court of appeal in cases of major public importance
- there are 12 justices
the judiciary in the uk
- the term judiciary refers collectively to all UK judges, from lay magistrates to the 12 senior justices sitting on the UK supreme court
- Scotland and NI operate under different legal arrangements than those in England and Wales but the supreme court is the highest court of appeal for all three systems
judicial review
- the process by which judges review the actions of public officials or public bodies in order to determine whether or not they have acted in a manner that is lawful
- due to parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy of statute law, judicial review in the UK is generally seen as being less significant than in the US
- in the US, the supreme court can strike down regular statutes that are judged to have violated the US constitution
common law
- also called case law or judge made law
- is the term for the body of legal precedent resulting from the ruling of senior judges
rule of law
- the rule of law is a key principle of the UK constitution and A.V Dicey saw it as one of the ‘twin pillars’ of the constitution
- according to Dicey, there are three main strands:
1. no one can be punished without trial
2. no one is above the law and all are subject to the same justice
3. the general principles of the constitution, such as personal freedoms, result from the decisions of judges rather than from parliamentary statute
reform under new labour
- in 2003, the labour government announced plans to reduce the power of the Lord Chancellor and place most senior judicial appointments into the hands of an independent body
- the constitutional reform act (2005) reduced the power of the Lord Chancellor and placed most senior judicial appointments into the hands of a judicial appointments commission (JAC)
- it was hoped that this change would enhance the separation of powers, and result in a senior judiciary that was more socially representative of a broader population
the power of the uk judiciary
- unlike the US supreme court, UK courts can’t declare an act of parliament unconstitutional
- however, senior judges in the UK still wield considerable power and can:
- decide whether the actions of the government are unlawful or ‘ultra vires’
- issue a declaration of incompatibility where a parliamentary statute appears to violate rights guaranteed under the human rights act
- (the UK supreme court was able to ‘suspend’ UK statutes that violated EU law when we were a part of the EU)
judicial independence and judicial neutrality
- judicial independence is the principle that those in the judiciary should be free from political control
- judicial neutrality is where judges operate impartially, ie without personal bias in their administration of judges and is an essential requirement of the rule of law
- a lack of judicial independence will threaten judicial neutrality because if judges are subject to external control, their will be compromised but it doesn’t guarantee it