Judiciary

Question 1

Judiciary

Answer 1

⇒In the UK, the judiciary is kept independent from the other branches

⇒ Judges are appointed through independent comission with final appt by queen, unlike US where it is political based

Question 2

Judicial indenpence

Answer 2

Independence:
⇒ Needed under the rule of law to ensure that judicial decisions are legit

⇒ Guarantees independence from other gov. cons

⇒ Tension between P.S and rule of law: The courts play a crucial role in ensuring that parl. actions align with the rule of law

Question 3

Judicial transparency and accountability:

Answer 3

⇒ Transparency, accountability and scurtrinity are resquite for the judiciary to maintain just decision making and maintain public trust

⇒ Accountability example in UK: Judges appointment in the UK- its is non politicial and address the concerns of maj. party influencing judicial appt

Question 4

Advantages and challenges of the judiciary

Answer 4

⇒ Jurdification- Can be used as policy reform as more effective way of addressing societial issues

⇒ Large majorities in gov can lead to lack of check and balance system and limit politically diverse voices- The courts attempt to limit arbituary power

Debate over judiciary opinons over political control:

For J. opinons
⇒ Courts are seen as more effective, provide more long lasting guidance- silverstein

Aganist:
⇒ Political controls allow for more immediate and responsive change in societial needs- Tushnet

Question 5

Element of the judiciart- HRA and the Declaration of incompability

Answer 5

⇒ S.4 of the HRA allows for the DOI

⇒ DOI: Ruling by court that law is incompbatiable,

⇒ The ruling does not invalidate parl. sov but the mp can make amendments to the legislation to remove incompability- (s.10 of the HRA)

Question 6

Critics to DOI:

Answer 6

Gearty:
⇒ D.O.I can undermine pol. authority and cause a pol. risk

Gearty’s counter to the counters being a check and balance to exec:

⇒ Should be proceeded with caution or avoided as it may restrict and impede the gov, making it harder for them take the required actions to protect the state

Philipson:
⇒ Courts and their interpretation of laws should remain seperate to the legislative and exec branch. Courts should remain focused on interpreting laws and not trying to influence pol. decisions

Question 7

Judicial cons. on Parlimentary soverginity:

Answer 7

⇒ Parl. cannot be held judiciary accountable as that would negate parl. sov

⇒Courts can solely interpret laws even if it is absurd [R v Judge of the city of london court]

⇒ Any exstensive questioning of parl. would be questioning its soverginity so the only thing the courts can do is DOI

Counter: Courts having the power to amend laws would “ be a naked usupration”- Magor case, Lord simmons
⇒ This could blur the lines with the seperation of powers