Judiciary

Question 1

What is judicial neutrality and why is it important?

Answer 1

That our judges should not allow their own political views and biases to influence their decisions and application of the law

Question 2

What political restrictions are placed upon judges?

Answer 2

Judges are allowed to vote but they are not allowed to openly endorse particular political parties candidates or pressure groups

Question 3

Why did some in the media argue that it was impossible for the Supreme Court to be completely neutral when answering difficult constitutional questions?

Answer 3

Personal views may lead justices towards a particular answer

Question 4

How diverse is the UK Supreme Court?

Answer 4

2009 one single female Justice
2017 another female Justice
2017 Lady Hale first ever female president of the Supreme Court however it can be argued that it is still not balanced
BAME still remain low

Question 5

How do judges stay neutral?

Answer 5

• JAC identifies and eliminates from promotion any judges who show a lack of neutrality
• use of precedent

Question 6

What is judicial independence and what is sub judice?

Answer 6

Actions and decisions of judges should not be influenced by politicians.
Sub judice - prevent MPs and politicians from referring to current or impending court cases

Question 7

How is judicial independence held?

Answer 7

Appointment: JAC is independent and free from political involvement, decisions are not criticised by Parliament (convention), Fixed salary


Question 8

What are some of the problems with neutrality?

Answer 8

Judges are demographically unrepresentative, BAME down 10%

Question 9

What are some of the problems with judicial independence?

Answer 9

PM still retains role in the appointment of the Supreme Court judges, growth in ministers willing to criticise judges

Question 10

What was the Miller article 50 case?

Answer 10

It established that it was Parliament, not the government, who had control over the process of Brexit and the final say in what would happen

Question 11

What is tenure?

Answer 11

That once justices have been given the job, they keep it until they retire or die. Justices Can only be removed by serious misconduct - committing a crime.

Question 12

What did the criminal Justice act of 2003 include?

Answer 12

Double Jeopardy: if tried for an offence and not guilty they cannot take you to court for the same incident. However this does not exist the serious offences

Question 13

What is judicial review?

Answer 13

Judicial review is a process under which executive, legislative and administrative actions are subject to review by the judiciary

Question 14

The Supreme Court IS influential?

Answer 14

• They can stop executive action that is seen to be unlawful, judicial review (Miller V Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union)
•  They are the final court of appeal for all types of law e.g. Article 50 ruling in 2017
• Senior judges have become influential by making public comments about major issues. E.g. about sentencing policy and human rights

Question 15

The Supreme Court ISN’T influential?

Answer 15

• If the court decides against government decisions, the Parliament can make new laws allowing such decisions to stand-Poundland 2013
• Has to wait for cases to be brought before it. It can’t be proactive
• The Supreme Court cannot make judgements beyond the law, even in the interests of natural judges e.g. right to die cases

Question 16

What is legal sovereignty?

Answer 16

Is defined as that person or body who makes laws and whose laws are final, recognised by courts and enforced by the executive

Question 17

What is political sovereignty?

Answer 17

Refers to the person or body who makes decisions in reality. It ingnores where legal sovereignty may lie and concentrates on who realistically can exercise power within the state

Question 18

Name a type of legal sovereignty?

Answer 18

Parliamentary sovereignty meams that Parliament has the ability to make, unmake or remove any law it wishes

Question 19

Name a few limits of Parliamentary sovereignty?
✅=no limit
❌=limit

Answer 19

HRA: ✅The UK Supreme Court cannot strike down laws. ❌Since its introduction, judges have had the power to review cases and declare Acts incompatible

Devolution:✅Devolution acts state that Parliament retains the right to make laws on any matter. ❌Devolution of legislative power to Scotland, Wales and NI greatly limits Parliament

Referenda/People:✅Popular sovereignty is not absolute; Parliament an ignore a referendum. ❌In a democracy, the people hold ultimate power; Parliament needs to be sensitive to the wishes of the electorate

Question 20

Judicial Neutrality IS upheld?

Answer 20

✅ The judicial appointments commission (JAC) identifies and eliminates from promotion any judges who demonstrate a lack of neutrality
✅ The process of legal training and their lengthy experience is intended to ensure that judges operate according to a set of professional ethics that enable them to keep personal prejudices and bosses to one side
✅ The use of legal precedent and the possibility that cases may go to appeal help restrict the influence of personal views

Question 21

Judicial Neutrality ISN’T upheld?

Answer 21

❌ judges are demographically unrepresented. The proportion of black, Asian and minority ethnic judges were still well below one in 10 in 2017
❌ judges are seen as ‘establishment’, inclined to uphold the status quo. This is the main thrust of argument put forward by J.A.G Griffiths in his book The Politics of the Judiciary
❌ growing judicial activism can be seen as lacking neutrality

Question 22

Judicial independence IS upheld?

Answer 22

✅ security of tenure: judges are appointed until retirement and can only be removed by joint address in both houses of Parliament if they break the law
✅ fixed salary: is not subject to party political debates in parliament so that politicians cannot threaten to reduce judges’ salaries
✅ supreme Court: separate bodies from parliament

Question 23

Judicial Independence ISN’T upheld?

Answer 23

❌ Government retains some role in the final decision of appointing judges, which could be abused
❌ There has also been a growing trend of ministers being prepared to criticise judges rulings. For example in 2017 politicians criticise supreme courts ruling on article 50 case

Question 24

What was the R v Horncastle [2009] case?

Focus: the use of ‘hearsay’ - statements from absent witnesses, who are not under oath at the time are not able to be cross-examined

Answer 24

The case: Case centred on a clash between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights

Decision: the UK government felt this stance posed a real risk to justice - and the Supreme Court justices agreed

Question 25

What was the Nicklinson v Ministry of Justice [2014] case?

Focus: Tony Nicklinson (and two others) had locked-in syndrome, having been paralysed in a road accident, and wished to go to a Swiss suicide clinic

Answer 25

The case: Supreme Court had to decide whether the Suicide Act 1961, which made it illegal to encourage or aid another person to commit suicide, should be ruled unlawful. The men claimed the Act infringed their right to decide when to die

Decision: 9 justices took part showing importance! The court decided against the men by 7-2, agreeing the issue centred on a moral judgment which should be addressed by Parliament

Question 26

What was the HS2 Action Alliance Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] case?

The case: campaigners opposing HS2 sought a judicial review of the government’s plans to see if they complied with EU environment directives

Answer 26

Decision: The Court dismissed the case, saying that until Parliament reached a final decision on the HS2 scheme, it’s merits remained open for o debate