The UK supreme court has become too powerful-25 marks Flashcards
What could you say for the introduction of the question?
Outline context, created 2009, define “Too powerful”, the themes you will examine- power of judicial review and independence, what you will argue-disagree.
What are 2 key cases that should be known for this question?
Boris proroguing parliament / May triggering article 50
known as Miller 1 and Miller 2
How could we use judicial review to agree with the statement?
judicial review is a sign of power not a necessary check
e.g.- Miller 1- court ruled parliament must authorise brexit process, Miller 2- Johnsons proroguing of parliament was unlawful
How can we use judicial activism under judicial review to agree with this statement?
Judicial activism, courts are increasingly acting like political actors.
example- Manchester ship canal co v united utilities water-asserted common law rights over statutory law- saying common over statue law-undermining parliamentary sovereignty.
Judicial review applications up 22%-perceived rise in judicial intervention in public policy.
How can we use Judicial review to disagree with this statement?
judicial review is a necessary check, has limited and legitimate role.
e.g.- Spider Memos case- Guardian made FOI request that all correspondents between royal and ministers, made FOI applicable to royals. Not too powerful but upholding accountability by overruling govt secrecay.
What other evidence is there to support using judicial review to disagree with the statement?
Water ruling (2024)- ended pollution lawsuits-aligned with public interest ,not activism
Courts can not initiate cases, only respond to them- judicial review is reactive.
How can we use judicial independence to agree with the statement?
it is a democratic deficit. judiciary is too independent/lacking accountability.
Constitutional reform act 2005-reduced political control over appointments via judicial appointments commission.
Miller 2- again shows court ruling over govt strategy.
What other evidence can we use to support judicial independence agreeing with the statement?
Finch vs Surrey (2024)- required global environmental impact to be assessed in planning- seen as policy interference.
How can we use the concept of judicial independence to disagree with the statement?
Court often backs government/lacks power.
Begum v home secretary-ruled stripping of citizenship lawful-aligned with the executive.
What other cases can we use to support judicial independence disagreeing with the statement?
Scottish independence referendum case (2022)- court ruled Scotland couldn’t unilaterally hold a referendum.
dissolution act (2022)- government limited court power post-rulings . SC has no power to strike down laws, unlike the US SC.
How can we use the HRA to agree with this statement?
HRA increases court power because it allows courts to issue incompatibility statements.
Rwanda case (2023)- ruled govt couldn’t send asylum seekers to Rwanda-seen as judicial overreach by critics
Khan case (2010)- made deporting offenders harder, angering home office.
How can we use HRA to disagree with this statement?
courts are still weak, parliament is supreme
Rwanda ruling overturned by safety of Rwanda act 2024-parliament can and does override it.
Illegal immigration act 2023- including “non withstanding clauses” to ignore ECHR protections.
How could we conclude this statement?
UK SC is x too powerful, operates w constraints of constitution- has x power to strike down laws, reliant on cases being brought to it.
courts protect rights and hold executive accountable-especially important in a political system with a dominant executive.
