Judiciary impact of the executive

• The physical relocation of the Supreme Court was a symbolic one rather than a constitutional one - perform the same function and have the same relationship with the executive but there are greater checks on justices through the appointments process
• The Human Rights Act gives judges the right to issue a 'declaration of incompatibility' but parliament is under no legal obligation to fall into line with court rulings
• In diminishing the role of lord chancellor and removing the UK's most senior judges from the House of Lords, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 enchanced judicial independence making it more likely that judges would fell more able to hold the executive and parliament to account
• Extension of EU law through the Maastricht Treaty brought judges into greater conflict with other branches of government across a wider range of policy areas
• An increase of judicial action - use of the judiciary to settle disputes has become more common and has indirectly led to those in the executive ensuring all legislation complies with the HRA and EU law
• Precedent established under the Factortame case allowed judges to suspend actions of both parliament and the executive when appearing to have breached EU law
• Allowing cases under the ECHR to be heard in UK courts, the supreme court could directly challenge acts of parliament (HRA 1998)
• Physical separation of the Supreme Court and the House of Lords allowed the judges to have a more public profile, despite having to remain neutral
• Ultra vires cases can lead to retrospective legal changes by which the government can legitimise its previous actions
• EU law became more significant after the Maastricht Treaty, many areas of public policy remained largely in the hands of parliament, limiting the scope of judicial action