ETVT that UKSC is too powerful for a unelected and unacountable body Flashcards
The court is becoming more activist
The UKSC is becoming more judicially activist making decisions that take the court from beyond its legal role into the heart of the political debate.
Given that the court is unelected and unaccountable, it can be seen as unacceptable that the court is involving itself in political decision making. These should be reserved to the democratically elected politicians of the executive and the legislative.
Critics could argue that the cases on Article 50 and prorogation of parliament are examples of the court taking a increasingly activist role.
The court is fulfilling its consotutional role
The supreme court is not becoming more activist, yet it is simply fulfilling its role as the constitutional court of the UK, solving key constitutional and legal issues.
The HRA 1998 was a democratically elected law passed by parliament, parliament voted to give the supreme court a greater role in protecting civil liberties in the UK and acting as a check on the executive. Protecting the rights against the state is fulfilling the judicial role its been given.
Leaving the EU, Devolution and human rights issues have meant that the court is being forced to become more activist, this is a good thing as there are more constitutional issues that need resolving.
The UK supreme court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament and the SNP would not be able to call a second referendum without the approval from parliament, the SNP had no power to legislate In this case.
Scotsh Whisky Association and others v The Lord advocate the supreme court ruled that the 2012 Alcohol Act, a law which set a minimum pricing regime for alcohol in Scotland, the court dismissed the appeal stating the act did not break EU law.
R Miller v Secretary of state for existing the European union, the courts ruled that Theresea Mays government could not trigger article 50 without a act of parliament.
The supreme court also ruled in 2019 that the government’s decision to prorogued parliament for five weeks was unlawful.
2005 constitutional reform act gave the supreme court the power to do so.
They impede on executive and parliament ability to get stuff done
When the supreme court declares a Act of Parliament incompatible with the Human Rights Act.
In A and others v secretary of state for the home department 2004, it was ruled that the caluse of the Anti-terroism, Crime and security Act 2001 allowing the indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals suspected of international terroism was incompatible with the Human Rights Act, article 5 and 14.
Arguably parliament is Sovreign, and this is because they are made up of elected officials, the Supreme court should have no power to remove or change parliamentary legislation in this way.
Furthermore, the number of judicial review cases peaked in 2013 with over 15,000 initiated, these challenges are simply just placing a strain on taxpayers money and adding to delays ad costs to the management of public services.
Suella Braverman argued that in the case Wilson v PM 2019, it cost taxpayers money around 17,000 pounds.
They protect rights
Important protecting of rights in the UK, despite the extra pressure it applies on parliament and the executive.
2018 Civil partnerships case
Treasury v Ahmed 2010
Belmarsh case
Incompatibility is just a suggestion and is not enforceable on the government and parliament.
In the UNISON case of 2017 the Fees order was ruled Ultra Vires, the government immediately ceased colleting them and pledged to reimburse the fees it has already collected.o
