The Judiciary

Question 1

Highest court

Answer 1

Supreme Court

Question 2

Two divisions of the court of appeal

Answer 2

Criminal division and Civil division

Question 3

3 divisions of the Hight Court of Justice

Answer 3

• Queens brach divison
• family division
• Chancery division

Question 4

Senior courts

Answer 4

Crown, High court of Justice, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.

Question 4

Inferior Courts

Answer 4

magistrates and County

Question 5

Judicial indépendance

Answer 5

Notion that judges are free from government interference.
Maintained by an independent appointment committee. salaries are set by an independent body rather than the Govt.
Also is the notion that judges are neutrally objective and opinions are swayed by personal opinion or popular pressure.

Question 5

Separation of Powers

Answer 5

The Judiciary is separate both physically and in terms of personnel from parliament and the government. This is critical to the upholding of the rule of law.

Question 8

Ultra Vires

Answer 8

Everyone is subject to the rule of Law.

Question 9

Judicial review

Answer 9

A court process where the Judges review the legality of a decision or action made by a public body including a government.

Question 10

Arguments that the Judiciary is to powerful

Answer 10

Judges are unelected and are challenging to be removed.
The Human rights act 1998 means that Judges are often politicised figures because of this and they may have an impact on the legislative process.

Question 11

Arguments that the Judiciary is not excessively powerful.

Answer 11

Judges need to be independent of politicians to be impartial and fair to everyone.
judges only interpret laws and rate their compatibility to the ECHR.
Judges are experienced legal professionals. They are better situated to make legal decisions
The courts ensure that those in power stick to the rules themselves and it isn’t abusing it.

Question 12

Appointment procedure of Jobs

Answer 12

Appointments are based on metit and experience.
Politicians have no real say in appointment.
Done through the JAC (Judicial appoinemtn commission).
JAC is an open and competitive process
Before the Lord Chancellor had a role in appoinement now they dont.
Many have citisized composition of judiciary especially in the highest level.

Question 13

Evidence of a lack of diversity among judges

Answer 13

only one in six are female. Lack of BAME ethnic group representation. Fewer judges with a lack of barristial background. Domination of Oxbridge education.

Question 15

Does the lack of diversity matter? YES

Answer 15

• Judges do not reflect modern Britain society
• It could be hard to understand the socioeconomic/ background of a case
• Little improvement over the last decade.
• Reduces trust in judiciary
• More input from democratically elected judges will increase diversity.

Question 15

Does the lack of diversity matter? NO

Answer 15

• Unlike MP;s judges do not need to be representatives of the people but legal officials. Diversity is greater further down the line. The public would rather have trust in the best judges rather than the most diverse ones.
  An attempt to diversify would lead to a greater politicisation of the jury.

Question 16

Supreme Court

Answer 16

Set up in 2009 after the 2005 constitutional reform act. Must have served for 2 years as a barrister and 15 years to be a Barrister. Judges enjoy permanent security until compulsory retirement age. Free of political pressure.

Question 17

Main Roles

Answer 17

This is the final UK court of appeal. Enforces the ECHR in the UK.

Question 17

UKSC and Europe

Answer 17

Under the HR act 1998 the UKSC has the power to decide whether an action or body is in breach of the ECHR and if a Law is in breach then they can issue a ‘declaration of impartiality’. This kills the bill.
Before Brexit the SC had to decide the compatibility with British Law and EU law.

Question 17

Declarations of impartiality

Answer 17

Such delegations are rare but one was issued in 2018 finding that the government discriminated against gay people when they banned same sex couples entering into civil partnership.

Question 18

Appointment procedure

Answer 18

Non political, independent and based on Merit alone. Vacancies are filled by a special select commission.
The selection commission is made up of the president and deputy.
The commission consults with senior judges to put forward names.
The Lord Chancellor can accept or Reject the nomination but cannot put forward their own candidate.

Question 19

Miller V Secretary of State for Exiting the EU.

Answer 19

The government didn’t put a vote to parliament on triggering article 50. It questioned should the devolved assemblies be consulted on Brexit.
Conclusion- Parliament must be allowed to vote on article 50. Devolved assemblies need not be consulted on Article 50. In part victory and part defeat for the Govt.
Not a politicised decision only a constitutional one.

Question 20

The Charlie Guard Case

Answer 20

Key features: Were the parents of Charlie Guard allowed to take him abroad for treatment.
The Removal was opposed by Both Great Ormond street hospital and Charlies independent legal guardian who both argued that it was not in his best interest. The case was about the legality of efforts as well as the legality of the followed procedures.
The case found that Charles guardians were not allowed to take him abroad. He died shortly afterwards when his life support was removed. The case reaffirmed the principles that parents do not have the say on their Childs care.

Question 21

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis V DSD and Another 2018

Answer 21

Key features:
Two victims of serial raoist John Worboys successfully won case against the MET police for not taking allegations seriously at the time. They won substantial allegation. this was a human Rights case.
Outcome:
The UKSC decided that the Victims Human Rights had been breached. If a police force conducts an investigation into a major crime that fails in a serious way it could be liable to a human rights action brought by the victim.

Question 22

Miller V The Prime Minister
The prorogation of parliament 2019

Answer 22

Context:
In august 2019 New PM Boris Johnson sought to suspend Parliament for a record 5 weeks. This was achieved through Royal prerogative and not a vote in parliament. Many MP’s felt that this gave parliament too little time to scrutinise Brexit legislation.
Result:
The government was defeated and the SC rules unanimously that prorogation in these curcumstances was unlawful. The SC overulled the appeals court and decided that the Courts did have the power to rule upon the use of the Royal Prerogative. The case represented a victory for the principle of constitutional sovereignty. The ruling had little impact on Brexit result as BJ called an election.

Question 23

Impact on Government, legislature and the making of policy by the UKSC

Answer 23

The UKSC acts as a significant check and balance on government and parliament in regard to both legislation and executive actions. Under the HRA 1998 all government bills must include a statement saying that in the ministers view the bull is compatible or incompatible and either way if the Minister would like to continue. Sometimes as was seen with the 2019 the R V Miller, the judiciary can enter politics. Parliament can ignore the verdict of the ECHR as in 2005 the govt ignored the denying all prisoners the vote bill unlawful.
Sometimes the UKSC comes comes close to overturning key aspects of govt policy but this has never been done.