Exam Q - Constitutional Change - Judicary

Question 1

Labour Reforms

Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Act

Answer 1

• Separated the judiciary and the govt (a clear split between the senior members).
• Lack of independence addressed, as the head of judiciary was in all three branches meant that the neutral judiciary and political cabinet role would intervene.
• Cannot be removed by ministers or threatened by loss of income because of decisions (security of tenure and money).
• Removed the role of Lord Chancellor and combined to the post of the Justice secretary, only could make policy, not practice.
• Made provision for judges of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), and equivalent courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to sit as acting judges in the new Supreme Court.

Question 2

Labour:

The Supreme Court

Answer 2

• Highest court of appeal - House of Lords.
• Senior ‘Law Lords’ hear important appeal cases (often with great political consequences).
• Not appropriate that members of the legislature should be at the highest level of the judiciary.
• Opened a separate Supreme Court in 2009 - worked to establish new independence.

Question 3

Appointment of senior judges

Answer 3

• Some opposition of senior appts to the judiciary being handled by politicians - Lord Chancellor and PM.
• JAC set up to ensure suitability of candidates - govt has final say over who is a senior judge after approval = danger that appointments made based on the judge’s political views, rather than legal qualifications.

Question 4

Did the reforms increase democracy?

Answer 4

Yes:
+ Clear separation of senior members of the govt and the judiciary.
+ Removed Law Lords - creating a new Supreme Court.
+ Set up the JAC to ensure candidate suitability on appointing senior judges - feared a focus on political views rather than legal requirement).

No:
+ Unelected judges with some political influence (members chosen by the JAC).