judiciary

judicial review

power of the judiciary to review and potentially reverse actions made by the government

whether or not gov actions are in clash with the ECHR

HRA 1998

act of parliament that took the Uk into the ECHR

makes supreme court guardians of the ECHR and ensure gov upholds it

Justiciable or Non Justiciable

whether or not courts have the authority to judge on a matter

judicial precedent

when a court makes a new judgement that helps inform future judgements

judicial independence

whether or not courts are free from political pressure

judicial neutrality

whether or not courts are free from internal bias or political agenda

ultra vires

someone (usually gov) acts beyond the powers they actually have

sub judice

when something is still under legal consideration

the rule of law

everyone is equal under the law

threats to judicial independence

the media - judges are far more in the spotlight

threats from politicians - arguably the gov have not done enough to defend the judiciary (e.g. Lizz Truss not doing enough to challenge the ‘enemies of the people’ headline)

PM ultimately retains the power to veto any appointment to the supreme court

Ministry of Justice decides the overall funding available for the courts

multiple PMs have threatened to reform the supreme court - e.g. Johnson proposed stripping the supreme court of the power to challenge any prerogative power

safeguards of judicial independence

security of tenure - very difficult to remove a judge unless they have been found guilty of serious wrongdoing

since 2005 the SC are selected by an independent panel of judges called the Judicial Appointments Commission

in recent years the supreme court have become much more active at challenging the gov

powers of lord chancellor have been massively reformed and is now mostly just a ceremonial role

belmarsh 2004

detention of foreign terror suspects without trial

took place prior to supreme courts establishment and was overseen by the Law Lords

-gov didn’t show why it only applied to foreign terror suspects

-use of HRA

abu quatada 2005-2013

deportation of a known terror preacher back to Jordan where he would likely face terror or execution

took 8 years and 500,000 to finally deport hm

ECHR was filling its role

treasury vs Ahmed 2010

freezing the assets of two brothers suspected to be part of a terrorist cell

-Treasury hadn’t reached the threshold for charging - ultra vires

-gov passed legislation in 4 days - parliamentary sovereignty

black spider memos 2015

whether or not to publish cabinet minutes that may expose political interference by prince charles

the case was rooted in the ‘freedom of information act’ where members of the public can request that the gov release certain info

article 50 2017

whether or not the PM had the prorogative power to trigger article 50 and start the 2 year brexit countdown with a vote in parliament

rwanda 2023

whether the deportation of illegal migrants to rwanda was lawful

whether rwanda was a safe country and whether refoulement would take place

enforced the ECHR, rwanda had a history of refoulement

parliamentary sovereignty meant courts were undermined and bill passed which directly contradicted the supreme courtn

the miller case

whether the secretary of state for exiting the european union had the prerogative power to trigger article 50

ruled that the secretary of state did not have this power

the case demonstrated that the judiciary determine the limits of the govs prerogative powers and that the rule of law is superior to political considerations

how has judicial review been applied in the uk

the miller case: Johnson had acted ultra vires and his decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful

ruling meant that parliament was not prorogued

appointment process for a supreme court judge

vacancy must occur if a judge steps down or turns 70 and must retire

the commission creates a shortlist of eligible candidates who are then interviewed and one person is then reccommened and submits it to the lord chancellor

this is then submitted to the pm and then approved by the monarch

how is independence of the judiciary maintained

security of tenure

rule of sub judice

independent appointments

judicial pay

how is neutrality of the judiciary maintained

rulings must be made on the basis of law

peer review

restrictions on group membership

training and experience

are supreme court judges truly independent and neutral

yes - constitutional reform act 2005 removed most threats to their independence, security of tenure, ministers have no influence over which judges are appointed, no recent evidence of bias in favour or against gov

no - judges come from a very narrow social background, some conservative politicians claim the supreme court contains too many lawyers of a liberal disposition