Essay Source: Judges No Control Over Gov

Question 1

Source presents the argument that:
“The press, MPs and public have every right to criticise the judges. “ (1)

Answer 1

1. Many Brexiteers argued that judges had overstepped their role in forcing a parliamentary vote on Article 50, despite the referendum’s result. Judiciary should be accountable for making politically significant rulings.
2. Faced public backlash for controversial sentencing decisions, R v Anthony Williams (2021) a man who killed his wife was sentenced to 5 years.

Question 2

Source presents the argument that: “The criticisms of judges in this case are wrong and dangerous.”

Answer 2

1. “Enemies of the People” Headline 2016 by the Daily Mail. This attack on judicial independence led to over 1000 complaints and widespread concern that judges were being pressured by political forces.
2. Boris Johnson set up small, highly expert panels to review judicial powers and said that they are being used to ‘conduct politics by another means.’ 2020. Reduce judicial oversight.

Question 3

Source presents the argument that:
‘The decision to leave was made by voters in a referendum following an Act of Parliament.’ (2)

Answer 3

1. Over 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU and the government argued that judges had no right to interfere with a democratic decision and they could trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval.
2. When businesswoman Gina Miller challenged the government’s right to trigger Article 50 without a vote, Brexiteers saw this an elite attempt to stall or block Brexit.

Question 4

Source presents the argument that:
‘She claimed only Parliament could take away rights that Parliament had itself granted in the 1972 Act that took Britain into what is now the EU. The Supreme Court agreed.’ (2)

Answer 4

1. Supreme Court ruled that only Parliament, not the Prime mInister alone could trigger Article 50, reinforced the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy.
2. Cherry/Miller 2019, ruled that Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament for 5 weeks was unlawful, prevented the government from avoiding parliamentary scrutiny.

Question 5

Source presents the argument that:
‘the judiciary interprets the law passed by Parliament, which is sovereign.’ (3)

Answer 5

1. Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was unsafe and sending asylum seekers to Rwanda violated Article 3 of the ECHR. Interfering with government policy.
2. AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2020) SC blocked the government from deporting the man who had committed several serious offences because it would shorten his life as he need HIV treatment.

Question 6

Source presents the argument that:
‘important restraint on arbitrary government.’ (3)

Answer 6

1. R (Evans) v Attorney General (2015). Protecting Freedom of Information. The SC ruled against the government’s attempt to block the publication of Prince Charles’ letters he wrote to ministers, transparency.
2. R (Unison) v Lord Chancellor (2017). The SC ruled that the government’s introduction of high employment tribunal fees was unlawful because it restricted access to justice.