Supreme Court

Question 1

E+A 3 ways the judiciary has become more powerful since 1998

Answer 1

2005 Constitutional Reform Act created the Supreme Court and enhanced the separation of powers. Increases judicial independence and neutrality, making the courts more likely to challenge the government. E.g. Miller v PM 2019
1997 Human Rights Act codified our rights and, thanks to the creation of the supreme court, judges can declare government actions or legislation ‘incompatible’ with the HRA. E.g. Rwanda bill 2023
‘Highest Court in the Land.’ Supreme Court has the most authority and can overturn appeals and decisions made by lower courts in the UK. E.g. 2022 Lee v Ashers Baking Company

Question 2

E+A 3 ways judicial independence is maintained

Answer 2

2005 Constitution Reform Act enhanced judicial independence by abolishing the Law Lords, and moving the judges into a separate building. Eliminates overlap between branches, and diminishes chances of judges being influenced by what happens in parliament.
Their salaries are paid from the ‘Consolidated Fund’ which is an independent panel, entirely separate from the government. Not subject to annual review from parliament. Enhances separation of powers, decreases chances of corruption, more likely to challenge govt. E.g. Miller v PM, Johnson’s actions were rules “unlawful.”
Judges appointed by the JAC, which is an independent committee. Judges are not selected by anyone from the other branches of government, no fusion of powers.

Question 3

E+A 3 ways the UK judiciary is criticised

Answer 3

Not independent. Judicial independence cannot be entrenched in the constitution because it is un-codified, and Parliament will always be sovereign - they can ignore Supreme Court recommendations/rulings. E.g. 2023 Rwanda Bill was declared ‘incompatible’ yet the government chose to go ahead with it
Not representative. Richard Scorer declared that decision making is often informed by a person’s background and around 70% of the Supreme Court judges went to Oxbridge. Cannot make decisions to benefit the people of the UK when they do not represent them.
Prime Minister’s can veto judges. Despite the appointment of the JAC, the Prime Minister can still reject judge nominations.

Question 4

The UK judiciary is not independent or neutral

Answer 4

Not independent. Judicial independence cannot be entrenched in the constitution because it is un-codified, and Parliament will always be sovereign - they can ignore Supreme Court recommendations/rulings. E.g. 2023 Rwanda Bill was declared ‘incompatible’ yet the government chose to go ahead with it
Not neutral. Richard Scorer “decision making informed by a person’s background.” Around 70% of Supreme Court judges were Oxbridge educated, arguably represent the views of the state over the views of the minority. They are supposed to act within the public interest, but can they?

Question 5

The UK judiciary is independent and neutral

Answer 5

Their salaries are paid from the ‘Consolidated Fund’ which is an independent panel, entirely separate from the government. Not subject to annual review from parliament. Enhances separation of powers, decreases chances of corruption, more likely to challenge govt. E.g. Miller v PM, Johnson’s actions were rules “unlawful.”
Neutral. Judges are chosen based on their merit and promotion to senior ranks is unlikely if you’re seen as ‘bias.’ Increase in the number of anti-establishment cases, proves that the judiciary can act against the government. E.g. 2010 Supreme Court forced the government to pass emergency legislation because the Treasury weren’t allowed to do it because there had been no vote

Question 6

UK judiciary is the same and has not changed

Answer 6

Parliament is still sovereign, this restricts the scope of the judiciary’s powers. Supreme Court can declare an action ‘ultra vires’ but ministers can pass retrospective legislation to legalise it. E.g. Reilly v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2016
Judiciary is not representative. Around 70% were Oxbridge educated. Judiciary is not diverse, and is still viewed as polarising by many because of how exclusive it appears

Question 7

UK judiciary has changed

Answer 7

Abolishment of Law Lords. Supreme Court judges can no longer sit in the Lords. This enhances the separation of powers and allows the judges to freely speak out against the government. E.g. Miller v PM 2019
Increased public profile of judges. Constant live X feed from the Supreme Court which allows for education. Appeals are heard in different parts of the UK to raise awareness nationally. E.g. In 2018, the Supreme Court travelled to Belfast