Legal personnel:

• Justices of the Supreme Court

  Appointed from those who are high in office ie. Judge on Court of Appeal or have

  been able to appear in the Senior Courts for at least 15 years.

  The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, states that there should be a maximum of 12

  they are the most senior judges in the country.

  They sit in the Supreme Court.
• Lord Justices of Appeal:

  Must have been qualified as a barrister or solicitor and have gained experience in

  law for at least 7 years or be an existing High Court Judge.

  Are officially appointed by the Queen. Will either sit in the Civil Division of the Court where they will hear appeals

  from County Court or High Court or Criminal Division of the Court, where they

  will hears appeals from the Crown Court
• High Court Judges


  • Necessary to have been qualified as barrister or solicitor and have gained experience in law for at least 7 years or to have been a circuit judge for 2 years
  • The vast majority are appointed from barristers who have been in practice for 20-30 years
• Deputy High Court judges


  Appointed as a way of testing the suitability of a person for the role
• High Court Judges are appointed by the Queen
• Divisions of the High Court

  • Queens Bench – high value claims or criminal cases from Crown Court
  • Chancery, high commercial claims, liquidation etc
  • Family – wards of the state, Divorce, abductions etc
• Another advantage of the judiciary is that no judge can hear or try any cases in which they have an interest in the issues involved. This is shown in Pinochet in 1999. This means that there is no bias when deciding which party will win at the end of the court process. 
• Another advantage of the judiciary is that it is independent from the other arms of the state. This is shown by the government not being able to dismiss superior judges. They can only be dismissed if they make decisions that displease the government. This is shown in R V Home Secretary, ex parte Fire brigades union (1995).  
• One of the advantages of the judiciary is that they are immunity from suit which means that judges at all levels are given immunity for criminal prosecution for any acts they carry out in performance of their judicial duties. This allows them not to feel the consequences of not being able to say what they need within their role. 
• Judges are also able to hear cases involving human rights and again are prepared to find against the government. The Human Rights act 1998 incorporates the European convention on Human Rights into UK law and judges have the ability to declare that an act is incompatible with the convention. This was shown in H V Mental Health review Tribunal (2001).. Decisions of this nature put pressure on the government to change the law to comply with the ECHR. 
• Disadvantage: Judges may be seen as too closely linked to the state and the government as they are civil servants. This means that it might break the separation of powers principle due to m not being independent from the other arms of the state. This could then lead to them being influenced by parliament due to them wanting higher wages, so they will be more inclined to favour the government rather than the proper legal outcomes. 
• • Security of tenure – holding of an office ​

  ​

  Superior level judges cannot be dismissed by the government, only the monarch following a petition from both sets of houses. ​

  Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Lord Chief Justice has the power to dismiss inferior level judges.  ​

  Judicial independence is guaranteed under s 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act, 2005.  ​

  The Lord Chancellor and government ministers must not seek to influence particular judicial decisions
• • Appointment​
  • ​
  • The Judicial Appointments Commission selects candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.​

  ​

  • “It is our statutory duty to select people on merit, who are of good character. We believe the judiciary should reflect the society it serves and we aim to attract diverse applicants from a wide field. We work closely with a range of organisations to promote vacancies to all those who are eligible”.​
• Immunity from Suit

  Allows a judge to perform judicial responsibilities without fear or repercussions
• Judicial immunity

  • Judges at all levels are given immunity for criminal prosecution for any acts they carry out in performance of their judicial duties
  • They also have immunity from being sued in any civil case while they are performing the judicial duties, including defamation for anything that they have said about the parties or witnesses in a case they are hearing
• Siros v Moore (1975)


  • Judge wrongly ordered a person's detention, person then launched a claim for false imprisonment against the judge, Court of Appeal held that no action lay against the judge, as he had acted in good faith, believing he had the power to imprison
• The Legislature


  • Not involved in law-making functions of parliament
• Full-time judges are not allowed to be members of the House of Commons (although Recorders can)
• Creation of the Supreme Court

  To separate the Judiciary from the Legislature (as the appellate committee of the House of Lords was then the final Court of Appeal)
• Judges are not allowed to be members of the House of Lords
• Judges

  • Given a degree of financial independence – salaries are given out from Consolidated Fund, which does not need Parliament's authorisation (although Parliament can change judicial retirement ages)
• • The Executive ​
  • Superior judges cannot be dismissed by the government and can make decisions that displeases the government.  Judicial independence is guaranteed under s 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. ​
  • Judicial Review – A hearing will take place in the Queen’s Bench Division, where the decisions of government ministers or public authority can be challenged by a person who has been affected by their decision. ​
  • R v Home Secretary, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) ​
• • Judges must not hear or try any case in which they have an interest in the issues involved.  ​
  • ​Pinochet (1999)  - A claim was made to extradite (move accused to foreign state where crime took place) the former dictator Pinochet, back to Chile to face charges of murder and torture.  House of Lords ordered he be extradited.  Then it was discovered that one of the judges Lord Hoffman, was an unpaid Director of Amnesty International, one of the parties to the case. The case was retired by the Lords with a different panel.  ​