influence of the Supreme Court

• INFLUENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE EXEC AND PARLIAMENT

  The role of judges within an uncodified constitutional system is limited as they can not rule the actions of parliament as unconstitutional. Therefore, Judges in the UK have a narrower capacity to constrain parliament and the executive than judges in the USA, but they still influence them.
• JUDICIAL REVIEW

  judicial review is a review of the actions of ministers and other government officials to ensure they conform to the law. Ministerial actions and decisions can be declared unlawful when they are Ultra vires, that is, when the minister is acting beyond their powers
• THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

  The HRA made it possible for the Supreme Court to issue a declaration of incompatibility if it believed that an act of parliament conflicted with it. Parliament can still ignore the Supreme Court, but these declarations bring significant political pressure to bear on parliament to review these issues
• IS THE SUPREME COURT INFLUENTIAL - YES

  • The Supreme Court can stop executive action according to the principles set out for judicial review
  • their position as the final court of appeal dealing with the most significant matters affords them significant power
  • since the HRA, the Supreme Court has increased its ability to protect citizens' rights, usually from government actions. As a result, the court has become more involved in human rights debates being generally more aware of civil liberties
  • senior judges have become influential by making public comments about major issues
• IS THE SUPREME COURT INFLUENTIAL - YES

  • The Supreme Court has acquired a reputation for standing up for rights, which led critics to suggest that they are 'reading rights into laws' that were not intended by governments - charges of judicial activism
  • in freedom of information cases, the Supreme Court has upheld decisions to publish information against the wishes of ministers
• IS THE SUPREME COURT INFLUENTIAL - NO

  • No 'higher' constitutional laws so the Supreme Court can not strike down a statute law
  • if the Supreme Court sets aside decisions by ministers or public bodies, parliament may pass legislation which allows such decisions (Belmarsh and Poundland)
  • the Supreme Court can not be pro-active - it must wait for cases to be brought before them
  • The Supreme Court can not make judgements beyond the law even in the interests of natural judgements
  • Supreme Court justices are unelected and understand their constitutional role in relation to elected politicians
• IS THE SUPREME COURT INFLUENTIAL - NO

  • parliament is sovereign which means that it decides if it wishes to amend laws in line with the Supreme Court's Suggestions
  • The Supreme Court can not overturn statutes even if they go against the HRA or ECHR
• CASE STUDIES: R V HORNCASTLE 


  Focus - the use of 'hearsay' - statements from absent witnesses who are not under oath at the time and are not able to be cross-examined has long been permitted in British courts

  The Case - centred on the clash between the UK courts and the ECHR on the use of hearsay in courts with the ECHR claiming that the use of hearsay to sentence someone infringes on the right to a fair trial

  Decision: The UK government felt this posed a risk to justice and the Supreme Court agreed to go against Strasburg
• CASE STUDIES: NICKLINSON V MINISTERY OF JUSTICE

  Focus - Tony Nicklinson had locked-in syndrome and wished to go to Switzerland to the suicide clinic

  The Case - The Supreme Court had to decide whether the Suicide Act 1961 made it illegal to encourage or aid another person to commit suicide, should be ruled unlawful. Nicklinson argued the act infringed on his act to decide when to die

  The Decision - 9 justices took place, an important case, but eventually decided against Nicklinson agreeing it was a moral judgement which should be addressed by parliament
• CASE STUDIES: AL RAWI V SECURITY SERVICE

  The Focus - raised the conflict between human rights and national security

  The Case - some inmates of US-run prisons tried to bring claims against the UK security services for contributing to the mistreatment while in detention. Security services wanted to give evidence in secret in the interests of national security, however, this would result in the prosecution never seeing the evidence against them

  The Decision - The Supreme Court decided this 'simply wasn't possible' claiming it would infringe on a fair trial
• CASE STUDIES: HS2 ACTION ALLIANCE Ltd V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

  The Focus - campaigners opposing the HS2 sought a judicial review of the government plans to see if they complied with the EU environment directives

  Decision - the court unanimously dismissed the case on the grounds that until parliament had reached the final decision on HS2, its merits remained open to debate
• CASE STUDIES: THE RIGHTS OF SEX OFFENDERS

  The government's position was that sex offenders in England and Wales must register with the police for life after being released. The Supreme Court ruled this went against their human rights and that they should have the right to appeal this 15 years after leaving jail this however infuriated the public, the police, and the government as there was a danger of these individuals not changing their behaviours.
• CASE STUDIES: PRIVATE JASON SMITH

  He was a serviceman in the UK who died of heatstroke in the Iraq war in 2003. His family brought the case to the court against the Ministry of Defence, arguing that the authorities should have safeguarded him. The high court ruled in their favour as the HRA did not extend to the troops and it should have.