supreme court

• Law is a form of social control, it dictates what we can and cannot do. It is meant to be non-political and independent. But it is made by politicians.
• In 2009 the court was created, theoretically increasing the separation of powers (from commons). Previously there were Law lords in the house of Lords. They deal with the highest/ most controversial cases.
• Questions remain about neutrality as there is a narrow political/social view. (2 woman and 10 men, all white).
• The court can rule that something is incompatible with the law but parliament can change this. (Rwanda)
• Supreme Court role:

  1. Preside over court/tribunals
  2. Dispense "justice"
  3. Interpret and apply law
  4. Make law (common) or legal precedents
  5. Declare common law (law based on long-standing traditions)
  6. Chair Public enquires
• Notable Public enquires:

  • Lord Scott 1996 (investigating arms to Iraq)
  • Macpherson 1999 (Stephen Lawrence murder)
  • Hutton 2003 (legality of Iraq war)
  • Chilcott 2009-11 (Iraq war Blairs involvement/responsibility)
  • Leverson 2011-12 (press practices & ethics)
• Rule of Law:

  • 1/2 pillars of what the UK constitution is founded on
  • Equality of all before the law, all must obey including public officials
  • Everyone is entitled to a fair trial
  • No one imprisoned without due legal process
• Most senior judge is designated president (Lord Reed, 2020). The JAC (Judiciary Appointment Committee) appoint the candidates which are then confirmed/rejected by the Lord Chancellor, PM + Monarch (routine approval).
• Independence:

  • Judges must be free from political interference, so they are impartial
  • Judges salaries are paid automatically from an independent budget known as the consolidated fund- cannot be manipulated with by ministers
  • Their separation from the HoLs
  • When a case is sub judice, nobody especially the government & parliament, are allowed to comment on it
• Independence Importance:

  • Protecting people from abuse by the government/organisations
  • Government should not be able to exceed its legal powers
  • Rule of Law
  • Judges need to be impartial to organisations
• Independence Threatened:

  • Government retains control of the ministry of justice
  • Politian's have opened a dialogue with judges over issues such as sentencing policy & human rights
  • The PM has the final veto over judicial appointments
  • The government does breach Sub Judice
• Neutrality:

  • Judges have to refuse to sit in on cases involving someone they know
  • They have to avoid political activity and relationships with any organisations so they are impartial
  • Training to be a lawyer so judges are trained to make law biased decisions
• Independence Pro:

  • Being chosen appointed by mostly non-political figures
  • Appointed by different bodies, Scottish, Irish, JAC, president & deputy of the court
• Neutrality Pro:

  • Recent judgments have favoured individuals and minorities (e.g. Prison Reforms/Mental Health Act)
  • The Human Rights Act gives stricter protection of rights especially against the government
  • More liberal judges have balanced views and led to critism of political parties
• Neutrality Con:

  • judges come from a narrow sector of society and so dont reflect it (1 woman judge voted against prenups)
  • increasing media/parliamentary scrutiny can impact judges decisions
• Ultra Vines is acting "beyond the powers", as action that is taken without legal authority. 2012 "residence test" for legal aid ruled that the Lord Chancellor was beyond his powers.
• Judicial Review: power of the judiciary to review, and sometimes to reverse actions by other branches of government that breach law, or are incompatible with the HRA.
• Criteria for judicial review

  • Offends the ECHR and/or Rule of Law
  • Offends the principle of common law
  • Ultra vines
  • The correct administrative procedures were not followed in making the decision
• Independence is the idea that judges can’t be put under political pressure while neutrality is in reference to the Judge’s own opinions.
• Brexit:

  -The government wanted to trigger article 50 without authorising an Act of Parliament

  -The supreme court ruled against this saying that it wasn't compatible with law and parliamentary powers
• Belmarsh case 2004

  • The case of foreigners being indefinitely held in Belmarsh prison without trial under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
  • The court ruled that the action was incompatible with the ECHR but that the home secretary was not required to release them
• How do Judges "make law"- Declaring common law:

  Judges make interpretations of what common law is (unwritten laws based on legal precedents by the courts), when established by the supreme court, all smaller courts have to follow it.
• How do Judges "make law"- Interpreting statue law:

  Judges declare what they believe the statue law (parliament law) means.
• How do Judges "make law"- Developing case law:

  Statue law may not always be clear, so case law is when interpretations are made that apply to certain cases (binds lower courts for similar cases)