Advantages of Judicial Independence

• Upholds Rule of Law

  Ensures that the law is applied fairly and equally to everyone, including the state itself. Cases will be decided solely on the evidence presented in court and in accordance with law. Judges can hold the government to account without fear of consequences. For example, in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament must authorise the triggering of Article 50, despite political pressure. This protected the constitutional principle that the executive cannot change the law without Parliament.
• Promotes Public Confidence in Judicial Decision Making

  A visibly independent judiciary builds trust in the legal system. When people believe that judges are impartial and not influenced by political agendas, they are more likely to respect and comply with legal decisions. This enhances the legitimacy of the courts and promotes social stability.
• Transparent and Fair Appointment Process

  Judicial independence ensures merit-based appointments in the Judiciary seen particularly following the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. This independent body ensures that judges are appointed based on merit, qualifications, and experience, rather than political allegiance or secretive government influence. Previously, appointments were made based on information obtained by ‘secret soundings’ from ‘the old boy’s club’ and kept the field from which individuals were selected very narrow. Now, the process by the JAC reduces the risk of bias within the judiciary and improves public trust, as judges are seen as impartial legal professionals rather than political actors. It also supports diversity and openness in the selection process, reinforcing the principle that the judiciary must serve justice, not politics.
• Make Decisions That May be Unpopular

  May be unpopular with the public, government, or media, as their role is to uphold the law rather than seek approval. This is essential in a democratic society, where the law must sometimes protect minority rights or enforce constitutional limits on power. A clear example is R v Anderson (2002), where the courts ruled that the Home Secretary's involvement in sentencing decisions breached Article 6 of the ECHR, even though the decision went against political expectations. Without independence, judges might feel pressured to deliver judgments that align with popular opinion rather than justice and legal principles. Ultimately, Judicial Independence acts as a check on the power of the executive and legislature. It helps to prevent authoritarianism by ensuring that laws and government actions can be reviewed by a neutral body. This is essential in a democratic society.