ETVT the supreme court has too much influence over the executive and parliament Flashcards
structure
composition of court
court role in interpreting HR
courts power of judicial review
example
pale male stale examples
Radmacher v Granatino
current president
how do you become a judge
A v Secretary of State (2004),
R (Steinfeld and Keiden) v Secretary of State (2018),
2024 Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas case
Parliament can change laws to bypass the Court’s rulings, such as
of the 12 justices, 11 are male, all are white, and 11 went to Oxbridge.
Lady Hale was the only dissenter in a case on prenuptial agreements, arguing the male-dominated court didn’t reflect how rulings could disproportionately affect women.
Lord Reed, current President, has been a senior judge since 1998.
judge has to have served as a senior judge for 2
years, or been a qualified lawyer for at least 15 years
A v Secretary of State (2004), the Court led to changes in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
R (Steinfeld and Keiden) v Secretary of State (2018), it led to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths Act 2019
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas case, the Court ruled that the Conservative government had violated the law by approving oil projects without proper environmental consideration, revoking approvals until the government complied with legal requirements.
such as the Dissolution Act (2022), which removed the Court’s ability to review prorogation.
Government actions: The Rwanda Act (2024) bypassed judicial review after the Court declared the plan illegal.
Overall limitation: Parliament can amend laws to override the Court’s decisions, limiting its power over the executive and Parliament.
LOA
no
- for comp
The Supreme Court is unelected and unrepresentative, yet holds significant power over the political process.
Criticised as “pale, male and stale” (The Times, 2011) — of the 12 justices, 11 are male, all are white, and 11 went to Oxbridge.
In Radmacher v Granatino (2010), Lady Hale was the only dissenter in a case on prenuptial agreements, arguing the male-dominated court didn’t reflect how rulings could disproportionately affect women.
This shows that such an elite and narrow judiciary may lack neutrality and should not override elected bodies.
- no comp
The Supreme Court does not have too much power, as it operates under strict rules to maintain judicial neutrality.
Justices cannot campaign for political parties or pressure groups and must recuse themselves in cases of personal conflict.
All decisions must be grounded in law, fully explained, published online, and televised, ensuring transparency.
Appointments are based on experience and merit, not politics — e.g. Lord Reed, current President, has been a senior judge since 1998.
Making the Court elected could risk politicisation, as seen in the US system, undermining judicial independence.
judge has to have served as a senior judge for 2
years, or been a qualified lawyer for at least 15 years
- yes HRA
The Supreme Court ensures legislation complies with the Human Rights Act (HRA), influencing Parliament by declaring laws incompatible with the HRA.
For example, in A v Secretary of State (2004), the Court led to changes in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and in R (Steinfeld and Keiden) v Secretary of State (2018), it led to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths Act 2019.
This persuasive influence over human rights law gives the unelected Court significant power to shape legislation.
2 no. HRA
Parliament and the executive retain ultimate decision-making power, meaning the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring a rights-based culture is legitimate but not overreaching.
The Court can issue a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act but cannot compel Parliament to change laws, as Parliament is sovereign.
For example, the Illegal Migration Bill (2023) was introduced with a section 19 note acknowledging potential incompatibility with the Human Rights Act but proceeded regardless.
Parliament could repeal or amend the Human Rights Act at any time, limiting the Court’s influence.
- yes judicial review
The Supreme Court has the power to review whether the government has acted ultra vires (beyond its authority) and can reverse actions if necessary.
This raises concerns about the Court’s influence, as it can overturn decisions made by a democratically elected government.
For example, in the 2019 Prorogation case, the Court ruled that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, reversing the government’s action.
Similarly, in the 2024 Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas case, the Court ruled that the Conservative government had violated the law by approving oil projects without proper environmental consideration, revoking approvals until the government complied with legal requirements.
- no judicial review
udicial review: The Supreme Court prevents government overreach, as seen in the prorogation case, where it upheld Parliament’s sovereignty.
Protecting Parliament’s powers: The Court ruled in the Scottish Independence case that the Scottish Parliament needed UK Parliament consent for a referendum.
Parliament’s power to limit the Court: Parliament can change laws to bypass the Court’s rulings, such as the Dissolution Act (2022), which removed the Court’s ability to review prorogation.
Government actions: The Rwanda Act (2024) bypassed judicial review after the Court declared the plan illegal.
Overall limitation: Parliament can amend laws to override the Court’s decisions, limiting its power over the executive and Parliament.
