Supreme Court has too much influence over the executive and Parliament.

Question 1

Judicial Review Ensures Accountability

Answer 1

In Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), the Court upheld the principle that the government cannot bypass Parliament, reinforcing the idea that the executive is accountable to the people’s elected representatives.

Miller II 2019

Question 2

Parliamentary Sovereignty is Not Absolute

Answer 2

The Human Rights Act (1998)
Between 2000 and 2020, the Court issued over 40 declarations of incompatibility related to the Human Rights Act,

A v Secretary of state (blemarsh case)

Question 3

Upholding the principle of statutory authority

Answer 3

In cases like HS2 (2014), the Court confirmed that UK legislation takes precedence over EU law unless Parliament explicitly says otherwise.

Question 4

Judicial Expansion into high-profile Constitutional Matters

Answer 4

Example: Miller I (2017), 2019
Case: Government (executive) tried to trigger Article 50 (to leave the EU) using royal prerogative.
»overall strengthened sovereignity

Question 5

Constraining the executive

Answer 5

HRA 1998-These cases can be argued weak and lacking real substance, only causing delays and extra costs to management of public services —Courts can issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ if legislation breaches human rights (ECHR) – challenging Parliament’s moral authority. – over 15, 600 judicial review cases in 2013

Ruled against certain provisions of the Public Order Act 2023 which aimed to crack down on disruptive protests.

Question 6

Courts give devolved governments legal protection

Answer 6

Continuity Bill Case (Scotland) – 2018 –Bill to preserve EU law in devolved areas after Brexit.
Westminster then passed the UK Withdrawal Act 2018, asserting UK-wide control.

The Supreme Court was asked whether the Scottish bill was within Holyrood’s powers.