The Supreme Court and Interactions

Question 1

What is the judiciary? - Supreme Court

Answer 1

The judiciary is all of the judges and courts operating within the UK.

Question 2

What meant that the Judiciary became fully independent of the Government in the UK? How? - Supreme Court

Answer 2

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created a fully independent judiciary in the UK. This meant that the role of Lord Chancellor lost its judicial significance, while the Supreme Court was created to rule on the most important and controversial judicial cases.

Question 3

What are the 6 roles of the judiciary? - Supreme Court

Answer 3

Dispensing justice, interpreting law, establishing case law, declaring common law, conducting judicial reviews, and holding public enquiries.

Question 4

How does the judiciary fulfil its role of interpreting the law? - Supreme Court

Answer 4

The judiciary interprets law by creating precedents on disputed matters (which become binding on lower courts), as well as when ruling on specific cases which require an interpretation of Parliament’s intentions when passing a certain statute.

Question 5

How does the judiciary fulfil its role of conducting judicial reviews? - Supreme Court

Answer 5

The judiciary conducts judicial reviews by reviewing decisions of public bodies to observe if they have acted ultra vires (outside of their legal powers), with this often done to ensure that government has not acted outside the law or diminished the rights of citizens.

Question 6

How does the judiciary fulfil its role of holding public enquiries? - Supreme Court

Answer 6

The judiciary holds public enquiries by investigating matters of public importance in a politically impartial manner. This is assisted by their political neutrality.

Question 7

What does it mean for a body to have acted ultra vires? - Supreme Court

Answer 7

To act ultra vires is to act outside of one’s legal authority, and as such mean that the law has been breached. Judges have the power to overturn actions deemed to be ultra vires and demand compensation for this.

Question 8

What examples are there of public enquiries held by judges? - Supreme Court

Answer 8

Leveson Enquiry: investigated the conduct of the media following the phone hacking scandal, leading to OFCOM.
Chilcot Report: investigated the conduct of Tony Blair in commissioning the Iraq War, as well as the UK’s role.
MacPherson Enquiry: investigates possibility of institutional racism within the Met Police following murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Question 9

When was the Supreme Court ESTABLISHED? When was it OPENED? - Supreme Court

Answer 9

The Supreme Court was established in 2005, later being opened in 2009.

Question 10

Under what 4 circumstances does the Supreme Court hear cases? - Supreme Court

Answer 10

The Supreme Court hears cases with major implications for groups/individuals, important and disputed interpretations of law, which involve human rights and also important judicial reviews.

Question 11

What is Judicial Precedent? How can these be overwritten? - Supreme Court

Answer 11

Judicial precedent is where a court either makes a piece of common law or a decision on a certain type of situation which must be followed by all courts below it. These can only be overwritten by a higher court.

Question 12

What single area of justice is the Supreme Court not the final court of appeal for? - Supreme Court

Answer 12

The Supreme Court can have decisions on human rights matters appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, on account of the UK’s subscription to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Question 13

What is formal equality? - Supreme Court

Answer 13

Formal equality is the equal treatment of all citizens before the law, also known as the Rule of Law.

Question 14

What is legal sovereignty? - Supreme Court

Answer 14

Legal sovereignty is when a body has the legal right to exercise their sovereignty.

Question 15

What is political sovereignty? - Supreme Court

Answer 15

Political sovereignty is where Parliament, in practice, has the ability to create whatever laws it wishes.

Question 16

What is the relationship between the Judiciary and Parliament on legislation? - Supreme Court

Answer 16

The judiciary is subordinate to Parliament in that it primarily interprets statutes created by Parliament. It must make rulings in accordance with Parliamentary law.

Question 17

What aspect of law must Supreme Court judges consider when making particularly contentious decisions? - Supreme Court

Answer 17

The Supreme Court must consider the intentions of Parliament when interpreting and ruling on the basis of a statute.

Question 18

How can Parliament overrule the decisions of judges? - Supreme Court

Answer 18

Parliament is capable of overruling the decisions of judges by utilising the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty to pass new statutes or amend old ones.

Question 19

What must judges do if they find a Parliamentary statute to be in conflict with the ECHR? - Supreme Court

Answer 19

If a statute contravenes the ECHR, judges cannot overrule the statute, so must issue a ‘Declaration of Incompatibility’. Parliament can then change the law to comply with ECHR or ignore the Court’s rulings.

Question 20

What noticeable example is there of a Declaration of Incompatibility being issued under the New Labour government? - Supreme Court

Answer 20

In 2004, the New Labour government decided to indefinitely hold foreign terror suspects in Belmarsh Prison without trial. The Act allowing them to do so was found to be in conflict with the ECHR, and as such it was amended to permit the government to use control orders.

Question 21

What was the disputed element in the Case of R v Gnango (2011)? What was the outcome? - Supreme Court

Answer 21

It was disputed as to whether a man who had been shooting at another person could be charged with murder of a passer-by when the other gunman had killed her. A case of joint enterprise, Gnango was eventually convicted of murder.

Question 22

What was the disputed element in the case of Abu Qatada v UK (2012)? What was the outcome? - Supreme Court

Answer 22

It was disputed as to whether Abu Qatada could be deported to Jordan to face criminal proceedings as there was a possibility of interrogation by torture which could result in his death. It was decided that any deportation would come in contravention to the ECHR and as such it would be delayed.

Question 23

What was the disputed element in the case of R v Hughes (2013)? What was the outcome? - Supreme Court

Answer 23

It was disputed as to whether an uninsured and unlicensed driver could be guilty of death by dangerous driving when involved in a fatal collision which the deceased driver was responsible for (under the influence of drugs). It was ruled that the defendant could be guilty of murder in accordance with the law even though the SC was unhappy with the statute leading to this decision.

Question 24

What arguments are there that the legal balance of power should lie with Parliament? - Supreme Court

Answer 24

Parliament is elected and accountable, has a clear mandate to govern the country, can quickly adapt and respond to public opinion, has a responsibility to protect the population as a whole even if it means offsetting the rights of individuals.

Question 25

What arguments are there that the legal balance of power should lie with judges? - Supreme Court

Answer 25

Judges are politically neutral, are rational decision makers as a result of legal training, expected to be immune to outside influences or bias, the fact that they are unelected means they are not subject to public opinion or outside influences (such as being re-elected).

Question 26

What is the principle of judicial neutrality? - Supreme Court

Answer 26

The principle of judicial neutrality is the idea that judges should not be swayed or subjected to outside political influence. This means that they should avoid being pressurised by politicians or being involved in party politics. They should also declare conflicts of interest.

Question 27

What is the principle of judicial independence? - Supreme Court

Answer 27

Judicial independence is the principle that judges should not be influenced by other branches of government, so as not to be unfairly influenced on matters concerning the state and the public.

Question 28

What 3 mechanisms are guarantees of judicial independence? - Supreme Court

Answer 28

Judges have security of tenure, security of pay and a non-partisan appointments process.

Question 29

How does security of tenure ensure judicial independence? - Supreme Court

Answer 29

Security of tenure ensures judicial independence in that it means judges cannot be removed from their position on appoint of their political decision making, instead that they can only be removed due to their personal conduct.

Question 30

How does security of pay guarantee judicial independence? - Supreme Court

Answer 30

Security of pay guarantees judicial independence as it means that judges cannot be threatened by politicians with a pay cut on account of decisions. Instead, they are paid by a ring-fenced fund which politicians cannot interfere with.

Question 31

How do non-partisan appointments guarantee judicial independence? - Supreme Court

Answer 31

Non-partisan appointments guarantee judicial independence as it means that politicians are not involved in the appointing of judges. This means that judges are appointed on the basis of their legal ability, not due to political or partisan connections.

Question 32

What was the disputed element in the case of R Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017)? What was the result? - Supreme Court

Answer 32

It was disputed as to whether the Executive could trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without any approval by Parliament. It was decided that the Executive had to seek Parliament’s permission in a major constitutional call, leading to the EU Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017.

Question 33

What was the disputed element in R Miller v Prime Minister (2019)? What was the outcome? - Supreme Court

Answer 33

This ruling determined that a prorogation of Parliament was unlawful when called by Boris Johnson to prevent debate and discussion of Brexit arrangements prior to the UK’s scheduled department from the EU. This overturned Parliament’s prorogation and returned it to operation.

Question 34

What was the disputed element in Steinfeld and Keiden v SS for International Development? What was the political significance of this? - Supreme Court

Answer 34

Steinfeld and Keiden disputed whether it was acceptable for heterosexual couples to be allowed to have civil partnerships, initially intended for same-sex couples. This resulted in heterosexual couples being allowed to have civil partnerships, with the Court intervening on social rights and ruling previous legislation to be against the Human Rights Act.

Question 35

What was the disputed element of NHS Trust v Y (2018)? What was the political significance of this? - Supreme Court

Answer 35

NHS Trust v Y (2018) saw it debated whether it was mandatory for courts to be consulted when doctors and family members are in unanimous agreement over withdrawing life-support for patients. Ruled that this was not required, with the Court making ethical and medical rulings which had major implications for health policy.

Question 36

What was the disputed element of Pimlico Plumbers v Smith (2018)? What was the political significance of this? - Supreme Court

Answer 36

It was disputed whether an individual had who claimed to have been discriminated against and unfairly dismissed was a worker or self-employed as a contractor for a company. Eventually ruled that Smith was a worker and as such was entitled to employment rights, with the SC intervening in employment rights and defending citizens.

Question 37

What was the disputed element of Sutherland v HM’s Advocate? What was the political significance of this? - Supreme Court

Answer 37

Disputed as to whether evidence obtained by paedophile hunters was admissable in court when prosecuting alleged sex offenders. Ruled that, although could be against HRA, the HRA should primarily defend children from predators and therefore this evidence was admissable. A conflict of rights.