Judiciary ~ Too Powerful - Politics

Too independent of government (CON)

Judiciary appears too independent of the government’s policy and thereby frustrates the will of the people

Opposition to government interest controversial for an unelected body

Increasing tendency to take on political cases, compromising apolitical stance. E.g. Pinochet Case 1998, judge and spouse had ties to Amnesty INT

E.g. 2017 Brexit Ruling - Parliament must be consulted to pass deal “ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE”, acting in overly political nature. MP Douglass Carswell: “shocking judicial activism” - many claimed it as a plot amongst ‘remainers’ to complicate Brexit’s passing

Act as executive check and uphold parliamentary sovereignty (PRO)

E.g. 2017 Brexit Ruling - Reduced chances of government dominating the political process, in process making the courts the true opposition to government - preventing an elective dictatorship

Independence from government simply means that the courts can perform their job more effectively and reduce government’s growing dominance - strengthens UK democracy

Too liberal (CON)

Courts are overly concerned with the rights of individuals and minorities, rather than the will of government and the public

Handicapped successive government attempts to combat the “war on terror”

E.g. 2004 foreign terror suspects detention was ruled unlawful by Law Lords as a violation of ECHR as it was discrimination based on nationality - Went against both HOP, govt, media, public ~ most claimed it should have been left to parliament to decide

E.g. + banning of freezing of terror suspects assets made it difficult for government to tackle issue of terrorism

Growing sentiment in the Conservatives post-Rwanda that UK should withdraw from the ECHR

Maintain Rule of Law (PRO)

Ensures that everyone, migrants, criminal suspects, or the public alike have insurance of human rights

ECHR established as WWII made clear that we cannot rely on governments to protect individual rights and uphold rule of law.

Terror suspect detaining was clear discrimination on grounds of nationality and violated common law principle habeas corpus

Plus, British public generally becoming more liberal esp on issues like euthanasia and abortion, as well as greater awareness and value placed on our human rights.

Liberality doesn’t create standards unto themselves, just represents the rights enshrined into domestic and international law, giving “too liberal” no foundation to prove the courts are too powerful

Increase in Judicial Deference (NOT POWERFUL)

There is an increased tendency for judges to be more deferential - faced great amount of criticism from government, media, public, even when it is usually Min of Justice’s role to protect them.

Judges simply more wary to fully comply with their legal mandate

E.g. Shamima Begum - Ruled a “significant threat to national security” and her citizenship was revoked leaving her stateless - judges sided with government on the issue despite what their record of accomplishment would suggestto government actions and policies, often prioritizing executive decisions over individual rights and can inhibit judicial independence.

Conclusion (PRO)

These action simply represent a more effective judicial system that acts as a check on the executive especially where parliament has failed to

However, growing judicial deference suggests that judiciary could soon become like parliament and result in an elective dictatorship