Chapter 8 - The judiciary and Parliament - final

Question 1

Who is sovereign, Parliament or the Supreme Court?

Answer 1

Parliament. The judiciary is subordinate to Parliament; judges may pass an opinion on the law and recommend changes but that is as far as it goes, they must enforce the will of the UK Parliament no matter how much they may disagree.

Question 2

How do judges determine the real meaning of statute law?

Answer 2

They look back at parliamentary proceedings to establish what Parliament intended the law to achieve.

Question 3

What can Parliament do if they disagree with the ruling on the judges on the meaning of a law?

Answer 3

They cannot overturn the court’s decision, they must either amend the law or pass a new one.

Question 4

What and when was an example of Parliament passing a new law to reverse the decision of the courts?

Answer 4

2010, Prime Minister Gordon Brown passed the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act after the Supreme Court ruled government did not have the power to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists.

Question 5

When was the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act passed?

Answer 5

2010

Question 6

Why was the Terrorist Asset-Freezing Act passed?

Answer 6

To allow Prime Minister Gordon Brown to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists after the Supreme Court had ruled the government did not have the power to do so.

Question 7

When was the Human Rights Act?

Answer 7

1998

Question 8

What did the Human Rights Act do?

Answer 8

Made the European Convention on Human Rights part of UK law.

Question 9

If a UK law conflicts with the ECHR, what can the Supreme Court do?

Answer 9

It cannot prevent the UK law from passing as Parliament is omnicompetent; all it can do is make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ stating that the two laws conflict. It is then up to Parliament to decide what to do.

Question 10

When the Supreme Court makes a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, what are Parliament’s options?

Answer 10

1. Amend the UK law to make it compatible with the ECHR.
2. Ignore the incompatibility and proceed with the UK law regardless of the conflict, which they can do because they are sovereign.

Question 11

What does omnicompetence mean?

Answer 11

It literally means the ability to do everything.

Question 12

What is a ‘declaration of incompatibility’?

Answer 12

A declaration made by a judge stating that a UK law is in conflict with the terms of the ECHR. This does not make the UK law invalid as Parliament is sovereign but it does advise Parliament to reconsider to law.

Question 13

If the courts come to one conclusion and Parliament another, who will prevail?

Answer 13

Parliament, always, because they are sovereign and publicly accountable.

Question 14

What 2004 case illustrated the problem of incompatibility between UK law and the ECHR?

Answer 14

The Belmarsh Case.

Question 15

When was the Belmarsh Case?

Answer 15

2004

Question 16

What are the details of the Belmarsh Case?

Answer 16

9 suspected terrorists had been held for several years in Belmarsh prison without trial under the terms of the Crime and Security Act 2001. They appealed this claiming the ancient right of habeas corpus and the Law Lords ruled that the 2001 law was incompatible with the ECHR. Although the government did not have to take notice, this did so in order to respect the human rights of the prisoners and subsequently released the 9 prisoners.

Question 17

What was the act that originally would not allow Brown to freeze suspected terrorist assets?

Answer 17

Terrorism Act 2006

Question 18

What was the Belmarsh case an example of?

Answer 18

Government listening to a declaration of incompatibility even though they are not required to do so.

Question 19

What law did the Law Lords declare to be incompatible with relation to the Belmarsh case?

Answer 19

Crime and Security Act 2001