Judiciary

• Judiciary

  • 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 Ultra Vires.
• 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 parliamentary Sovereignty 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 parliamentary Sovereignty
  • Judicial review 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