the relationship between institutions Flashcards
why was the Supreme Court established?
it was opened on 1st October 2009, it would be established under the CRA in 2005, this would be designed to end the fusion of powers at a senior level, the “law lords” would sit in the Hof L, these would be known as at the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, this was designed to bring the UK in line with other western countries.
The CRA would also change the role of the lord chancellor, whom would previously combine three functions, a cabinet minister, chairman of the sittings of the HOL and the head of the judiciary. The act would remove the last two responsibilities, the lords will be chaired by a speaker and the judges will be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
what is the significance of the supreme courts role?
The UK does not have a unified legal system, there will be three different systems for the whole of the UK. Yet, the Supreme Court will cover the whole of the UK. The Supreme Court will hear appeals that will resolve around wider public and and constitutional interest- cases of public interest.
in July 2016 the SC would rule against the named person legislation that Scotland would want to put in place, this is because it will conflict with article 8 of the HRA.
the significance of the appointment of members of the Supreme Court?
there SC will consist of 12 members, though cases will always be heard by an odd number of justices so that a majority verdict can be reached. 11 would be involved in the review of the High Court ruling that the government should initiate the exit from the EU.
the most senior figure will be given the role as president, it has often been criticised about the lack of females within the justice system, Lady Hale is one example. Now, there is a more equal make up of the lords.
Supreme Court justices would have served as a senior judge for two years and they may have also been qualified for 15 years. The appointment will be confirmed by the PM and then by the monarch.
what is the significance of judicial neutrality?
this is the idea that judges will exercise their roles without personal bias, there are a number of ways that this can be prevented:
conflicts of interests- judges must refuse to sit on a case that involves a family member, friend to professional associates.
public activities- they may teach lectured and educate the public but they should not be involved in political activity, they may sit on a government commission.
How neutral is the SC?
there is a large narrowness with regards to age, gender and race which may affect the outcome of rulings, in 2015 Lady Hale would highlight that since her appointment she would have appointed 13 justices all whom were white and male.
what is the significance of judicial independence?
this is the principle that judges must be free from political interference
thus can be guaranteed by:
terms of employment- judges cannot be removed from office unless they break the law, there is an official retirement age of 70.
pay, judges are paid by the independent budget.
appointment: the judicial appointments commission and the selection commission for the SC are transparent in their procedure and free from political intervention.
the SC is also physically separate from parliament.
how indepenede is the Supreme Court?
it is mostly independent, there would be some concerns that would be raised by Lord Phillips, it would argue that the independence of the court was at risk unless it would be pre-set funding.
This would be dismissed by the justice secretary at the time, Kenneth Clarke.
the influence of the Supreme Court on the executive of parliament.
it will interpret in 1998 HRA, the doctrine of parliamentary sovreignity would mean that parliament can ignore rulings that are put in place, this was evident with the Rwanda Bill. The Supreme Court have the power of judicial review, the court can inquire whether ministers have followed correct procedures, they can can also see whether they have acted beyond ultra vires, which means beyond ones powers.
The relationship between the executive and parliament?
hailsham would argue that the elective dictatorship would take place every 5 years with the GE, this would be the only real check on the power of the executive.
This would occur in 2003, when the Blair gov would be elected on less than 40% of the votes.
2011, created a piece of legislation that had not been put before the electorate, this was the fixed term parliament act.
what encourages executive dominance to arise?
FPTP system will favour larger parties.
there is the whip system and the PM would have the use of patronage, that would be advantage.
the gov would dominate the legislative timetable.
the use of the salisbury convention this is designed to limit opposition to the give,
the absence of a codified constitution will mean that the gov is the main body.
there is also the concept of an elective dictatorship, this will pose some wider questions with the relationship between the executive and parliament.
examples of key cases?
PJS V News Group Newspapers 2015- an unnamed celebrity would want the media to not release details about his private life as it would infringe upon his privacy, the SC would rule in their favour
Vince Vs Wyatt ms wayat and mr Vince would divorce and afterwards mr Vince would become wealthy, though the couple would be poor. Ms Wyatt would have the right to make the claim.
Schindler vs Duchy of Lancaster 2016, there would b debate over British citizens who would have loved abroad for over 15 years could vote in the EU referendum.
2019 the bedroom tax, reduce housing benefit by 14%
are supreme justices truly independent and neutral?
arguments for:
The CRA
the justices have security of tenure so they cannot be removed by ministers.
appointments will be independent of politics
Arguments against:
ministers can exert some influence
they come from a narrow social background
both Lord Reed and Kerr have life peerages so they will sit in the house of lords when they they are not justices.
what is an example of Ultra Vires?
this means beyond powers and the Miller Case is a key example, 2017.
what was the significance of the Supreme Court and Brexit?
this would take place in January 2017, this would be brought forward by Miller and would argue that May could not take such a step by using prerogative powers. This was because Brexit would introduce statutory rights for people in the UK. Brexiteers would be outraged.
what is the significance of parliaments position over government legislation.
parliamentary rebellions gave become more common in recent years, though Blair would not lose a vote until 2005, more likely a government will drop the plan for a vote this took place in 2015 when Cameron would fear a defeat over relaxing the ban on hunting. in 2013, when Cameron would pass same sex marriage this would go over well with Labour supporters despite harsh conservatives being against it, this would prove well for Cameron. Though, opposition can be used as an effective tool to pass legislation Blair would rely on conservative voters for the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapon system.
