UK- Judiciary Flashcards
When was it established?
The highest court of appeal for the UK used to be found in the House of Lords, sitting as what was known as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.
The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act was the act which provided for a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
How are Supreme Court Justices chosen?
- When a vacancy arises, an independent selection committee is set up, consisting of representatives from the different legal jurisdictions of the UK
- In the UK the nominee is proposed by an independent commission, chaired by the President of the Court. Candidates must have been a senior judge for at least 2 years and a lawyer for 15
- Justice secretary can veto (but can’t propose their own)
- Supreme Court Justices cannot belong actively to any political party.
Who are the Supreme Court Justices?
The UKSC has a total of 12 Justices, there are 9 men and 2 women, they come from a variety of legal backgrounds but have all been practising barristers at one stage. One is from Northern Ireland, two are from Scotland and the rest are from
Explain and analyse three features that help maintain judicial independence
intro: judicial independence - principle that those in the judiciary shoukd be free from political control
1-Tenure. Because they aren’t under threat of losing their jobs. Less biassed decisions. (retire at 75) wont feel the need to appease any particular minister.
2-Contempt of court. The contempt of court act 1981 made it an offence to not
respect court rulings, and this means there is no pressure from politicians.
3-Separation of powers. In 2005 the constitutional reform act was passed and in 2009 the law lords moved to the supreme court. meaning the judiciary was now completely separate from the legislature and the executive
Explain and analyse three ways in which the UK judiciary can exercise influence over government
1-Declaration of incompatibility. Can use
HRA and ECHR to declare things incompatible (however can be ignored eg rwanda)
2-Judicial review/ultra vires. 2016
government acted ultra vires by triggering article 50 (to leave EU) without parliament’s permission. (miller case)
3-Rule of law. Due to separation of powers. the judges are no longer appointed by the pm and are also no longer in the house of lords
Explain and analyse three criticisms of the composition of the judiciary
intro: the sumpreme court is made up of 12 senior judges and acts as the final court of appeal for cases
1-Elitism. 75% of justices attended a private school.unrepresentative of the lower classes
2-Gender. Only 17% of the court in 2021 were female. unrepresentative of women who make up over half the nations population
3-Race. in 2021 there were no ethnic judges. unrepresentative of minorities of which there is many in the uk as an extremely diverse country
Supreme court wages
£206,000 a year
What was the impact of the constitutional reform act 2005
2005 - removed the lord chancellors position in the judiciary
Created the Supreme Court
What was the Miller vs Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union 2017
Whether the government ask for a parlimentry vote in order to invoke article 50 to leave the european union.
This effectively Entrenched parliamentry sovriengty further into the system.
Explain and analyse three key principles that underpin the Supreme Court’s work.
1: Rule of Law. No one can be punished without trial. Not always maintained in practice. Terrorist subjects have been subject to a range of punishments without trial since 2001
2: Judicial independence. The idea that those in the judiciary should be free from political control. Significance Supported by security of tenure and guaranteed salaries. JAC has been established: brought greater transparency to the judicial appointment process
3:Judicial Impartiality. Where judges operate without personal bias in their application of the law. Upheld by high-level training and legal justifications of judgements - published on the Supreme Court website
Explain and analyse three reasons why the UK judiciary has become more politicised in recent years.
1:(Factortame LTD) v Secretary of State for Transport (1990)
Group of Spanish fishermen who claimed the UK had breached EU law by requiring ships have a majority of British owners if they were to be registered in the UK. Significance-Established the precedent that UK courts could suspend Acts of Parliament where they thought they could contradict EU law
2:Human Rights Act. Passed under Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’ government 1998. Significance - Has increased the profile of the judiciary. Has brought politicians and judges into conflict eg the court intervention with sunaks governments plan to sent illegal immigrants to Rwanda
3:Constitutional Reform Act
2005. Creation of the Supreme Court. Significance-Relocated most senior judges to its base in Guildhall. Brought senior judges into the public arena and subjected them to greater media scrutiny. HOWEVER, removed Law Lords - reduced overlap between courts and parliament
Explain and analyse three reasons why the UK judiciary has NOT become more politicised in recent years
1:Independent appointments system. The creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission. Made the process more transparent and legitimate. Significance-Hoped to make the bench more socially representative of the broader population. BUT 75% are still privately educated
2:Judicial Independence.
Security of tenure - judges have open-ended terms; have to retire at 75
Guaranteed salaries - Judges are paid £226k directly from the Consolidated Fund. Significance - This means that politicians are unable to manipulate salaries as a way of controlling them
3:Constitutional Reform Act
2005.
Created the Supreme Court. Significance-Reduced the influence politicians have on judges. Reduced role of Lord Chancellor. Removed the UK’s most senior judges from the House of Lords - law lords were replaced with 12 Justices
How significant is the power of ultra vires . Explain and analyse
Senior judges have the ability to rule that ministers in the executive have acted beyond their authority
Significance
Those ministers can pass retrospective legislation legitimising their actions
Reilly v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2016) - Supreme Court declared the Department for Work Pensions
‘welfare to work’ scheme unlawful; government had already passed the Job Seekers’ Act in 2013 - meant no offence had been committed
Reilly vs Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2016)
Judges asked to rule on gov’s ‘welfare to work’ scheme. Reilly argued that the DWP infringed protection against slavery in Article 4 of ECHR by requiring her to work for a private company in order to receive benefits. SC- whilst gov did no ‘establish slavery’ the scheme was still unlawful as gov had acted ultra vires. However, Jobseekers Act 2013 changed the law retrospectively.
