ETVT supreme court operates with sufficient judicial neutrality and independence Flashcards
structure
how the judicial neutrality of the supreme court is protected (neutrality)
how the judicial independence of the supreme court is protected(independence)
recent brexit focused cases
examples
LOA
operates with independence but not sufficient neutrality
- for neutrality
Legal restrictions: Judges cannot campaign for political parties or pressure groups (Constitutional Reform Act 2005).
Transparency: All Supreme Court decisions are published with legal reasoning and cases are televised (e.g. on YouTube).
Merit-based appointments: Judges must have 2+ years as a senior judge or 15+ years as a qualified lawyer, with proven neutrality.
Example: Lord Robert Reed, current President, has served as a senior judge since 1998.
Conflict of interest rules: Judges are barred from hearing cases involving family, friends, or personal connections.
- against neutrality
Narrow composition: Supreme Court criticised for lack of diversity – 10/12 male, 11 white, 11 Oxbridge-educated, all over 60, mostly privately educated.
Criticism: Described by The Times in 2011 as “pale, male and stale.”
Impact example – Radmacher v Granatino (2010):
Case on prenuptial agreements.
Only female justice, Lady Hale, dissented from majority.
She argued the ruling disproportionately harmed women and such gendered decisions should be made by Parliament.
Concern: Lack of diversity may limit perspectives and neutrality.
Power issue: Given the Court’s quasi-legislative power, a narrow composition can undermine fair legal interpretation.
- for idependence
Pre-CRA concerns: Law Lords were part of the legislature; Lord Chancellor appointed judges while also being a minister and chair of the House of Lords — raising independence concerns.
Post-2005 Constitutional Reform Act:
Supreme Court created, separating judiciary from Parliament.
Lord Chancellor’s judicial role removed; now just a government minister.
Lord Speaker now chairs House of Lords.
Judicial Appointments Commission (5 members) selects Supreme Court justices.
Judiciary led by the Lord Chief Justice.
Judicial independence measures:
Security of tenure: Justices can only be removed for misconduct via both Houses; retire at 70.
Protected salaries: Paid via the Consolidated Fund (£226,193), shielding judges from political/financial pressure.
Sub judice rules: Prevent MPs, ministers, and media from commenting on ongoing cases to avoid undue influence.
- against independence
Recent threats to judicial independence:
Judicial independence weakened by increased media and political scrutiny, especially post-Brexit.
High-profile cases like the Article 50 and Prorogation cases made the judiciary more visible and politicised.
Supreme Court justices face public and political criticism, undermining anonymity and independence.
Rwanda case (2023):
Supreme Court ruled government’s plan unlawful.
PM Sunak criticised the decision, implying judicial overreach, and misleadingly referred to a “foreign court.”
Gaza resettlement case (2025):
PM Starmer publicly called a judicial ruling “completely wrong.”
Lady Chief Justice Carr criticised this, stating it failed to respect judicial independence and should have gone through the appellate system.
Conclusion: Growing political attacks and media pressure on judges undermine judicial neutrality and independence, flouting norms like sub judice and threatening the separation of powers.
- for recent brexit cases
Supreme Court acted neutrally and independently in Brexit-related cases:
Court was upholding the constitution, not interfering in politics.
Government was acting ‘ultra vires’ (beyond legal powers), so the Court intervened lawfully.
Article 50 case:
Required Parliament’s consent, as triggering Article 50 removed rights granted by the 1972 European Communities Act.
Protected parliamentary sovereignty, not blocking Brexit.
Prorogation case:
Prevented Boris Johnson from using prorogation to avoid scrutiny.
Ruling upheld the principle of parliamentary accountability, not political opposition to Brexit.
- against recent brexit cases
Brexit-related court cases raised concerns over judicial neutrality:
Article 50 case (2016): High Court ruled Parliament must approve triggering Brexit.
Daily Mail branded judges “Enemies of the People,” suggesting anti-democratic bias.
Prorogation case (2019): Supreme Court ruled Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament unlawful.
Judges were labelled “arch-remainers” by right-wing commentators and Johnson allies.
Criticism:
Claims that judges were influenced by elite, anti-Brexit views, questioning their neutrality.
Argued that courts were overstepping into politics and limiting the power of an elected government.
