component 2: supreme court and soveriegnty

Question 1

the role and nature of the supreme court

Answer 1

• supreme court is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases. It hears appeals on arguable points of law and public importance, concentrating on cases of the constitutional and public importance, must remain impartial and neutral
• established by the 2005 constitutional reform act to improve and ensure the independence of the UK judiciary. It cant strike down laws only interperet exisitng laws.
• supreme court justices are appointed via a selection commission that interviews potential candidaes. They must have held judicial office for 2 years or worked as a barrister for 15. Commission makes its own recommendation, minister of justice can ask them to rethink or reject a candidate, but this power has not been used.

Question 2

powers of the supreme court

Answer 2

1: judicial review - main power is to strike down decisions made by public bodies. The court can uphold a judicial review if an action by a public body is considered illegal. But they can’t overturn laws as parliament is soveriegn.
2: Human rights act - the HRA increased the use of judicial review as it provided a codified, legal definition of people’s rights. THe type of judicial review has patricularly been used in immigration cases e.g. AM v home secretary. AM was legal UK resident, committed serious crimes, home secretary Theresa May requested he be deported to ZImbabwe. CLaimed it went against article 3: torture/degredaion as AM was a HIV sufferer and would suffer inhumanely due to lack of medication.

Question 3

is the supreme court independent and neutral?

Answer 3

yes:
1 - increased seperation of powers: judges paid good salaries to ensure neutrality
2 - judges recognise limits to own powers: recognise limits to their role under rule of law.
3 - need to maintain public confidence in their impartiality: judges sign up to principle of impatonality and know they are accountable to the law, take the judicial oath.

no:
1 - still no strict seperation of powers: judicial function has been entangled before e.g. highest court was law lords, which fused legislative and judiciary branches.
2- increased judicial activism: judges seem more prepred to challeneg executive and parliament due to more judicial review cases people willing to challeneg lawfulness of public bodies.
3 - icnreased media criticisms and higher public profile - increasing attacks by medi on character of judges rathe than their decisions and icnreasing visibility of judges in oublic undermine their impartiality.