Refers to all the UK judges from the magistrates to the supreme court
Role is to ensure is applied appropriately
Judges
Lower level judges preside over trials, give guidance to juries sand impose sentences
High court judges hear more serious cases
Supreme court judges can establish new precedents with their verdicts
Supreme court
Set up in 2009 after the constitutional reform act 2005
Replaces the law Lords with judges
Free of political pressure
Security of Tenure
Separation of powers
Main roles of the Supreme court
It's the final court of appeal for all UK civil cases and criminal cases
Enforced the ECHR in the UK which enhanced the power of the supreme court to hold government accountable
SC, Europe and Human rights
Under the human rights act 1998, the SC had the power to decide whether an action by a public body or particular law is incompatible with the ECHR
2018 - government discriminated against different sex couples by banning them from entering into civil partnerships as same sex couples. Government was in breach of their rights under article 14
Appointment procedure
It's designed to be non-political, independent and based on merit
Vacancies are selected by a selection comission
President and deputy president of the court and a member of the judicial appointments comission
Lord chancellor can accept or reject nominations and can't put forward their own
Ultra Vires
When government or other public bodies are deemed to have exceeded their powers, they are declared UltraVires.
Judicial review
When judges review the legality if a decision made by a public body or the government
It's about the process and not the wrong and rights of the conclusion reached
Separation of Powers
The judiciary is both physically and in terms of personnel separate from parliament and government
This is done to uphold judicial independence and the rule of law
Security of the Tenure
Judges can't be dismissed on the basis of decisions they make ( only for improper conduct )
They are removed from the role once they are of retiring age
They're free to make decisions
Salary
Pay isn't subject to annual review by the HOC
Pay is decided by an independent body/comission
They are payed enough so they don't accept bribes
Freedom of criticism
Constitutional conventions forbid MPs and peers from criticizing rulings and judicial review
Sometimes these conventions are broken
Case of Ultra Vires - Jan 2017 Article 50 Brexit appeal
Must the government get parliamentary approval to use article 50 to leave the EU
A case about constitutional matters
Outcome of the Jan 2017 Case
Parliament must be allowed a vote on article 50
Case reinforced the principle of parliamentarySovereignty and the supremacy of Westminster
Victory and defeat for the government
Interpreted the Constitution, not remain or leave
Prorogation of parliament case
Boris Johnson sought to suspend parliament for 5 weeks done through the royal perogative and not a vote by parliament
MPs felt no time to scrutinise the Brexit deal since which was happening on October 31st
Outcome of the prorogation of parliament case
Defeat for the government
The prorogation in the circumstances was unlawful
The effects of prorogation frustrated parliament as they couldn't carry out it's functions and supervise the executive
The ruling had little impact Brexit has Johnson called an election and won with a majority
Is the judiciary too powerful
Yes - Judges unlike MPs aren't elected and cannot be removed as easily
HRA 1998 gave the judiciary more power to get involved with politics and clash with parliamentarySovereignty
Judicialreview can end up forcing government bodies changing policies
Is the judiciary too powerful
No - judges need to be independent to be fair for everyone
Judges can only interpret laws passed by parliament and parliament can opt out of the HRA
Politicians are swayed by public opinion and media whereas judges aren't
Courts make sure judges stick to the rules and makes sure no ones above law
Judiciary neutrality
Griffith theory - the social background of judges would inevitably influence decisions they make like gender and social background
Criminal cases
Start in the magistrates court heard by 2 or 3 magistrates or a district judge
Hear 98% of cases
Passes severe cases to crown court and crown court deals with appeals
Crown courts have a judge and a jury
Appeals go to high court
Civil cases
Dealt with county courts in a more complex case
Jurisdiction covers a wide range like damaged goods, recovery of debt, award financial damage
Arguments that judicial neutrality exists
HRA has provides an increase in power and resources to use against the stage in civil cases
Both of the main parties have accused the judiciary of being biased but it can't be biased both ways and he neutral
Judges do main neutrality
Judges are bound by rules of interpretation when making judgement
Strict ROC
They have pride in their neutrality
Their background shouldn't really affect decisions made
Judges can't engage in political activity due to ROC