REL: The Supreme Court and its interactions with, and influence over, the legislative and policy-making processes. Flashcards
Parl is sovereign, what does this mean for the sc
the judiciary are subordinate to parl and cannot defy parliament
this is because parl is omnicompetent
the judges must enforce a law, even if they think the law is wrong
they can only pass opinion on a law and recommend change
a role of sc
interpret the meaning of statute law - they look back and work out what parl intended to do
it is not up to judges to decide what is desirable, only what parl thinks is desirable
if judges make a ruling that parl does not approve of, parl can amend a statute or pass a new one
to what extent does the supreme court influence the exec or parl? SMALL
small - because uk doesn’t have a codified constitution, the sc cant refer to a higher constitutional law when delivering its judgement. They can only recommend a change in a law or action. Parl is the higher body, instead of a constitution
to what extent does the supreme court influence the exec or parl? SOMEWHAT BIG
the sc decide whether the gov has acted beyond its authority
or can declare that the gov has acted in defiance of the human rights act
an example of when parliament overruled the supreme courts decision
TERRORIST FREEZING ACT 2010
in 2010 the sc ruled that the gov didnt have the power to freeze bank assets of suspected terrorists. PM GORDON BROWN was very angry but accepted the ruling TEMPORARILY
as a result a new statute was passed - the terrorist freezing act 2010 which granted power to the gov to freeze assets of suspected terrorists. This lead to problems like families not being able to feed their kids because they had no money - they were suspected not convicted
the sc couldn’t do anything about this and parliament prevailed
what did the relationship between the exec and judiciary USED to be
until the 70s, members of the sc usually came from the same social class and political background (largely conservative)
the judiciary usually showed support for the state
judges were not expected to significantly challenge the exec’s authority
they saw themselves as servants rather than an equal partner
how has the relationship between the exec and judiciary changed NOW
- there has been a growth in judicial review since the 70s eg ridge v baldwin and M v homeoffice
- a growth in liberal ideology including the growth in the ‘rights culture’
- more liberal minded senior judges have been appointed since the 90s
- the Human rights act 1998 gives the SC a codified statement which is a power to protect citizens from state power
- the constitutional reform act improved the independence of the judiciary
- become more of a counterbalance to exec power and are more willing to challenge
ridge v baldwin
(heard in the house of lords)
The Brighton police authority dismissed its Chief Constable (Charles Ridge) without offering him an opportunity to defend his actions. The Chief Constable appealed, arguing that the Brighton Watch Committee (headed by George Baldwin) had acted unlawfully in terminating his appointment following criminal proceedings against him
The House of Lords held that Baldwin’s committee had violated the doctrine of natural justice (judicial precedent that had been set before)
m v homeoffice
ask miss
constitutional reform act 2005
designed to improve and guarantee the independence of the uk judiciary
established the uk supreme court in 2009 - before this the highest court was the house of lords which was also part of the legislature
what is judicial review in the uk
if a citizen feels they have been mistreated by a public body there is an opportunity to seek judicial review by the courts - which will examine if the claims are justified
purpose - to establish wrongdoing or reverse the decision
role of judicial review (democratically)
1 - ensure the gov does not overstep its powers eg terrorist freezing act 2010, Gina miller article 50,
2- assert the rights of citizens eg ridge v baldwin
how have the judiciary been advantaged by recent constitutional events and acts
intro of HRA 98 meant that sc could review actions of the gov and public bodies which might contravene with the ECHR
the freedom of information act which gives citizens and courts to see a much wider range of official documents than before
these allowed for a larger scope of whether there had been injustice or rights had been abused
numbers of judicial reviews
they increased after 1977 when the procedures for citizens who wanted to get one was simplified
it rose to a peak in 2013 when over 15,000 applications were made. but most of them were refused
now expected to settle to about 4000 per year with 1/3 successful in an overturn
the gov is better at establishing rights and justice x 2
1 - gov is elected and accountable whereas the sc are neither
2 - gov can respond to public opinion