Relationship between the branches

is the supreme court too powerful?

1. Public policy

2. Conflict

3. Hinder government

1) Too much power to rule.. public policy

Some argue that the UK Supreme Court has become too powerful, particularly through its use of judicial review, which allows judges to influence public policy and interfere with the democratic process. Critics claim that this judicial activism risks undermining parliamentary sovereignty and the will of the electorate. A prominent example is the two Brexit-related judicial reviews brought by Gina Miller. In the first case (2017), the Court ruled that Parliament had to authorise the triggering of Article 50, and in the second (2019), it declared Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament unlawful. Although both decisions were legally justified, they were seen by some as contributing to delays in the Brexit process, despite the clear result of the 2016 referendum. In conclusion, while the Supreme Court plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, its expanding influence in politically sensitive matters raises concerns about the balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability.

1) however their are limits to the judiciary ( reactive not proactive)

Despite concerns about judicial overreach, the Supreme Court’s powers are limited in important ways. Crucially, it cannot initiate judicial reviews on its own; it must wait for a case to be brought before it. This means that the Court plays a reactive, not proactive, role in reviewing government actions. Furthermore, access to judicial review has become more restricted in recent years. Between 2015 and 2019, the number of applications for judicial review fell by 44%, largely due to cuts in legal aid, which made it harder for individuals to afford to bring such cases forward. In conclusion, while the Supreme Court does have the power to review government decisions, structural and financial barriers significantly limit the frequency and scope of these interventions, suggesting its power may be overstated.

2) Creates Conflict

The creation of the UK Supreme Court in 2009 significantly increased judicial independence and led to a more active judiciary, making constitutional conflict with the government more likely. Since then, the Court has taken a stronger stance in scrutinising executive decisions, particularly in areas like immigration, counter-terrorism, human rights, and Brexit. For example, in R (Miller II) (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. More recently, in November 2023, the court unanimously declared the government’s Rwanda asylum policy unlawful—concluding there were “substantial grounds” to believe asylum seekers could be at risk of refoulement, meaning they might be sent back to persecution  . These landmark rulings demonstrate a judiciary increasingly willing to challenge government actions on major policy issues. In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s independence and willingness to intervene have strengthened its role as an essential check on executive power, sparking political-legal friction and highlighting its significance in the UK’s constitutional balance.

2) Political interference fuels conflict and weakens judicial independence.

Politicians often undermine the independence of the Supreme Court and the wider judiciary by imposing restrictions on their decision-making powers. Successive governments have introduced minimum terms for criminal offences and established sentencing guidelines that judges must follow, limiting judicial discretion. For example, during Boris Johnson’s government, there was criticism over attempts to influence judicial decisions, such as the government’s response to the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling on the prorogation of Parliament. These measures can constrain judges’ ability to interpret the law independently and make rulings based solely on legal principles rather than political considerations. In conclusion, political interference through legislation and policy can weaken the judiciary’s independence and its role as an impartial arbiter in the justice system.

3) Hinder the government

The Human Rights Act 1998 requires UK Supreme Court judges to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and issue statements of incompatibility when government policies conflict with human rights law. This can limit the government’s ability to combat terrorism and control immigration. For example, in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the Home Office’s policy of detaining asylum seekers before their removal amounted to ‘false imprisonment.’ Such decisions demonstrate how the Act can restrict government actions in sensitive areas. In conclusion, while the Human Rights Act protects individual freedoms, it can also constrain government efforts to enforce security and immigration policies.

3) However, stop a powerful executive

The courts play a crucial role in protecting individual rights, but ultimately, a powerful executive with a parliamentary majority decides the extent of those rights. For example, the Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced ‘closed material proceedings’ or secret courts, allowing intelligence officers to give evidence without revealing sensitive details. Despite concerns raised during its introduction under David Cameron’s government, the Supreme Court has no power to overturn this law. In conclusion, while the judiciary defends rights, its authority is limited by the decisions and laws set by the government.

are judges independent and neutral?

1) appointment process

1) Yes - appointments are neutral

Judges in the UK are intended to be both independent and neutral, with the appointment process designed to minimise political interference. Prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, senior judges were appointed by the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, leading to concerns about undue political influence. The creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) aimed to remove this by introducing a merit-based, transparent selection process. For example, in 2020, Lord Reed was appointed as President of the UK Supreme Court through this process, having been recommended by an independent selection panel with no direct involvement from government ministers. In conclusion, while no system is entirely immune from political context, the reformed appointment process has significantly strengthened the independence and neutrality of the judiciary in the UK.

1) No- govt can influence the process potentially

Although judicial appointments in the UK have become more independent since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, there is still a degree of political involvement in the process. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), while operating independently, is itself appointed by the government, which opens the door to potential political influence. Additionally, during Boris Johnson’s premiership, there were reports that ministers were seeking to appoint judges who were more “in tune” with government thinking, particularly following the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that his prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. This raised concerns about the government’s willingness to influence judicial appointments in response to decisions it disagreed with. In conclusion, while the process has become more transparent and merit-based, examples like these show that the risk of political influence in judicial appointments still exists in UK politics.

2) Yes- Kilmuir rules

Judges in the UK can be considered neutral due to the political restrictions that prevent them from engaging in active politics, ensuring their impartiality in legal matters. One key example is the “Kilmuir Rules,” which were established in a 1955 letter by Lord Kilmuir. He argued that judges should refrain from participating in public debates on policy issues, stating that “as long as a judge keeps silence, his reputation for wisdom and impartiality remains unassailable.” This principle has contributed to the tradition that judges are not regarded as public figures and are largely shielded from public controversy and media pressure. In conclusion, such conventions support the view that judges maintain political neutrality and protect the integrity of the judiciary.

2) No- judiciary activism

In recent years, there has been a noticeable rise in judicial activism, which has led some to question the neutrality of judges. For example, in 2011, Lady Hale publicly criticised government cuts to legal aid, expressing concern over access to justice. Such instances highlight how senior judges have increasingly spoken out on political matters, raising concerns that judicial activism may compromise the traditional expectation of judicial neutrality. In conclusion, while judges are still expected to remain impartial, these recent interventions suggest a shift toward a more publicly engaged judiciary, which could blur the lines between law and politics.

3) Yes- diversity

Despite ongoing concerns about a lack of diversity in the Supreme Court—particularly in terms of gender, ethnicity, and educational background—there have been notable examples of progress. For example, Lady Hale became the first female President of the UK Supreme Court in 2017 and was known for championing greater diversity and inclusion within the judiciary. Her presence alone helped to challenge the traditional image of the judiciary as exclusively male and elite. Moreover, more recent appointments, such as that of Lady Rose, have brought a wider range of legal experience to the bench, including from academia and commercial law rather than solely from the bar. In conclusion, while the Supreme Court is still far from fully representative, steps have been taken to broaden its makeup, suggesting a slow but visible shift towards greater inclusivity and judicial neutrality.

3) No diversity

There is a clear lack of diversity within the UK judiciary, particularly in the Supreme Court, where the majority of justices are white, upper-middle-class men. As of 2025, only one woman, Lady Rose, sits on the Supreme Court bench, and all current justices are white—highlighting how unrepresentative the Court is of modern British society. This uniformity raises concerns about whether the judiciary can truly reflect the experiences and perspectives of the wider population. Moreover, many of the justices come from similar educational and social backgrounds, often having attended private schools and Oxbridge, which aligns more closely with the Conservative Party’s traditional voter base. This raises the argument that their rulings may unconsciously favour more conservative or establishment positions. For example, critics pointed to the Court’s 2023 decision to block legal challenges to the government’s use of offshore detention for asylum seekers as potentially reflecting these elite perspectives. In conclusion, the demographic makeup of the Supreme Court continues to challenge its claim to be fully neutral and representative of a diverse, modern democracy.