ETVT the Supreme court is independant and Neutral Flashcards
Appointments process and CRA framework and rules THEY ARE
Involves little political interference, Judges cannot be picked on how they will rule and favour the government.
The constitutional reform Act 2005 led to the creation of the JAC, Judicial appointments commission.
The commission is shared by the President of the supreme court.
Before 2005 the Judges were appointed by the Chancellor and the PM, so it was difficult to rule out any political influence, judges that favoured the government could be more likely to be selected.
This means that appointments were subject to political interference and compromised the principle of separation of powers.
Separation of powers.
Statue law now INSTEAD OF CONVENTION upholds the independence of the courts, the CRA details that the Lord chancellor and all other ministers uphold the independence of the Judiciary. Furthermore it has made a FAR clearer split between the supreme court and the executive branch.
Pay, judges must be paid significant salaries to ensure their integrity and impartiality, salaries can not be used as political influence as they are set by the Senior Salaries Review Body.
Security of tenure, once justices are appointed they cannot be sacked, therefore they remain in office until their Retirment age of 70, therefore the executive branch cannot use removal to influence the court.
Appointments process and CRA framework and rules THEY ARE NOT
The lord chancellor currently Alex Chalk has the power to ask the JAC to reconsider or outwrite reject their appointments, still clear interference in the branch, HOWEVER this has never been done before.
Composition of the court THEY ARE
The justices on the court are highly experienced and educated at a very high level. Most senior justices have served as a high court justice and received excellent education standards. Therefore, they are likely to be able to remain neutral and not allow prejudice to affect their judgement.
Applicants must have held high judicial office for at least two years, and worked as a barrister for at least 15 years.
Applicants must satisfy the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 15-year basis, or have been a qualifying practitioner for at least 15 years.
The judiciary is slowly becoming more diverse and this will therefore increase the diversity of the UKSC over time.
Lady Hale President of the Supreme Court between 2017 and 2020.
Since the establishment of the JAC the proportion of women recommended for the High court increased from 13% pre-JAC to 29% in 2017/18, while the proportion of BAME candidates recommended for the high court went from 2% to 6% over the same period.
Composition of the court THEY ARENT
It can be argued that a bias tends to operate within the UKSC, stemming from the fact that they are predominantly male, white, upper-middle-class, public school and ‘Oxbridge’ educated.
This means that the UKSC cannot be neutral, but instead naturally pro the establishment and traditionally taking a view of the right, lack of social representation therefore means there is a bias against minority groups in society.
As of 2020 all 12 Justices are British White of ethnicity and there is only two women on the court.
Lord Stephens is the only judge on the court that is not educated at the university of Oxford or Cambridge.
Judges cannot be neutral when their own life experiences are so different from the population, drawn from a very narrow pool of people.
Politisiation THEY ARENT
The Human rights Act 1998 has drawn senior judges into the political fray by requiring them to rule on merit of an individual price of statue law as opposed to its application.
UK judges writing articles and delivering speeches they have demonstrated their growing support for human rights and civil liberties.
Growing willingness for ministers to publicly criticise the courts, make statements about how the courts should act and express disappointment over the stance that judges have taken.
2013 Home secretary May accused the judges f making the UK more dangerous by ignoring rules aimed at deporting foreign criminals due to their beliefs of article 8 of the HRA.
In relation to anti-terror measures, Mr Justice Sullivan in 2006 said control orders imposed by the government were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights
Politicians have broken with convention by publicly critiquing rulings by the court, involving it in a political game, David Davis Brexit Minister did this when reacting to the court decision in R (miller) v Secretary of state for exiting the EU 2017 saying that govt. could not trigger article 50 without govt. approval.
Politicisation they are
Increased conflict between judges and politicians is a good thing as it shows that the court is prepared to challenge the government when it appears to be encroaching upon civil liberties.
It did this again in AM Zimbabwe v Secretary of state for the Home department 2020 where deportation of a individual was blocked amid concerns his life would be shortened by HIV as suitable care was not available in Zimbabwe.
Number of cases that have been brought against the government have risen from 4,240 in 2000 to 15,600 in 2013, arguably because the court has become more independent as of 2005.
Article 3 of the ECHR/CLEAR INDEPENDANCE
