Comparing the independence of the supreme courts (UK) 4.6

Question 1

Judicial Independence in the UK: Historical Context

Answer 1

• Judicial independence was obscured for centuries due to the structure of the courts.
• The Law Lords sat in the upper house of the legislature, and the highest court was a committee of that chamber.
• The Lord Chancellor was the head of the judiciary, presiding officer of the House of Lords, and a cabinet member.

Question 2

Constitutional Reform Act (2005)

Answer 2

• This Act changed the structural arrangement.
• The Lord Chancellor’s judicial role was transferred to the Lord Chief Justice.
• The role of presiding officer of the Lords was transferred to the Lord Speaker.

Question 3

Judicial Appointments in the Executive

Answer 3

• The Attorney General and the Solicitor General hold judicial appointments, serving as legal advisers to the government and leading major prosecutions.
• They do not influence court decisions.

Question 4

Appointment Process of the UK Supreme Court

Answer 4

• The appointment process is less politicized compared to the USA.
• The justice secretary can reject recommendations but has not exercised this power.

Question 5

Political Labelling of Judges

Answer 5

• Commentators attempt to label UK judges politically, but accusations of them representing a privileged elite seem baseless.

Question 6

Human Rights Act (1998)

Answer 6

This liberal law often leads to Supreme Court judgments declaring government actions ultra vires and incompatible with the Act (e.g., Belmarsh case, 2004).

Question 7

Criticism by Politicians

Answer 7

• In 2013, Home Secretary Theresa May criticized judges for ignoring rules aimed at deporting more foreign criminals.
• She accused judges of subverting democracy and ignoring Parliament’s wishes.

Question 8

Theresa May’s Statement on Judicial Independence

Answer 8

May argued it is essential for democracy that elected representatives, not judges, make the laws governing the country.

Question 9

Boris Johnson’s Disagreement with the Supreme Court

Answer 9

In 2019, Boris Johnson disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling that his proroguing of Parliament was unlawful.

Question 10

Number 10’s Response to Supreme Court Ruling

Answer 10

A Number 10 source argued the Supreme Court made a serious mistake by extending its reach to political matters and tying its reasons to Brexit disputes and timetable.

Question 11

Lady Hale’s Clarification

Answer 11

Lady Hale emphasized that the case was about the decision to suspend Parliament, not the terms of leaving the EU.

Question 12

Acceptance of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

Answer 12

Like past US presidents, Boris Johnson reluctantly accepted the Court’s judgment and its independence.