supreme court, EU and sovereignty evidence (only supreme court so far)

which big law made the judicial more independent

the constitutional reform act in 2005 separated the judiciary from the legislature - previously the house of lords was the highest court and the law lords sat in the house of lords. Now they are separate - connections between judiciary and executive are weaker, they are unlikely to influence each other

how does the appointment process ensure neutrality

There is an independent appointment process - an independent selection committee, chaired by the president of the supreme court and made up of members who are and aren't part of the legal profession, with representatives from the judicial appointments commissions of scotland, wales and northern ireland. The minister for justice is in theory able to reject the candidates that are recommended or ask them to reconsider, but they never have

what aspects of the judiciary’s jobs protect independence and neutrality

Judges salaries are recommended by a non political body and their salaries must be appropriate to maintain integrity and allow them to do their jobs. They have security of tenure - they can only be removed by parliament for misconduct, which has never happened

what conventions protect judicial independence and neutrality

There are conventions that ministers should exercise restraint when commenting on the judiciary, that parliament should not discuss ongoing court cases (sub judice rule) and that the government shouldn’t use contacts with the judiciary to influence decisions

example of tory breaking convention and threatening judicial neutrality and independence

in 2020, Suella Braverman, the attorney general at the time, called the court of appeal “wet, liberal judges being soft on criminals” to newspapers, if they didn’t increase the sentences they gave the teenagers who killed andrew harper (a police officer)

tory accusing judiciary of being corrupt

In 2019 Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, accused the supreme court of making up laws, when it ruled against boris johnson proroguing parliament - they ruled based on a precedent from 1611

tory threatening judiciary

Boris Johnson said that there would be ‘consequences’ for the supreme court after they ruled against him proroguing parliament

tory criticising judiciary and demanding explanation

Priti Patel wrote to the president of the immigration tribunal, demanding explanations for some of their decisions that went against the executive.

Supreme Court rulings on political issues

The supreme court ruled against the government in miller v secretary of state for leaving the eu in 2017 - he couldn't trigger article 50 without a vote in parliament, and miller v boris johnson in 2019 - he couldn't prorogue parliament to prevent them voting against a no deal brexit.

Supreme Court oath

"I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this Realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will."

how is the Supreme Court prevented from being overly political

Supreme court justices can’t take part in political activities publicly such as being members of political parties or participating in protests

how is the Supreme Court scrutinised

The supreme court is live streamed so justices have to explain their rulings and make it clear that they are ruling based on the law and not political opinions. In the rulings on article 50 and proroguing parliament, people could watch and see that they were looking at the law and not the pros and cons of eu membership. 

how has the media harmed Supreme Court impartiality - first big case

after the government lost the case on triggering article 50, the daily mail published the headline “enemies of the people”, accusing the supreme court of making a political decision to rule against brexit, rather than a decision based on interpreting the law

what did the Supreme Court say about media attacks

Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court, publicly criticised the media for undermining the rule of law and reputation of the legal system and the government for not being quicker and clearer in defending the judiciary.

second big media attack of Supreme Court

The sun promised that “no supreme court judge is safe in their bed” after they ruled that Boris Johnson couldn't prorogue parliament to prevent them from voting to prevent a no deal Brexit. 

how has the Supreme Court reduced class bias

lady hale, the president of the supreme court from 2017 to 2020, said that when she joined the law lords in 2004, she was the only female and state educated judge, and when she stepped down she was one of 3 female judges and 3 state educated judges

how has the supreme court become more representative of gender

Since the appointment of the judicial appointment commission, the percentage of women recommended for the high court went from 13% to 29% in 2017-18

how has the Supreme Court become more representative of ethnic minorities

Since the appointment of the judicial appointment commission, the percentage of BAME people recommended for the high court went from 2% to 6%

how are judges limited in bias based on social characteristics

The process of legal training aims to limit bias - senior judges have worked from 20 to 30 years as junior judges or barristers and the people selected for the supreme court are likely to have good reputations for impartiality

how is the Supreme Court still not representative

all of the supreme court justices are white, only 2 of the 12 are ethnic/religious minorities (jewish), only 2 are women, there are no openly LGBTQ+ justices

how is the Supreme Court not representative in terms of education

They are mostly privately and oxbridge educated - in 2019 65% of senior judges were privately educated and 11 of the 12 went to oxbridge

how has the Supreme Court been accused of bias by the right

The right has criticised the supreme court for having inbuilt liberal views and prioritising individual rights over the safety of the public, and for being anti brexit. It could be argued that their brexit rulings were biased.

how has the Supreme Court been accused of bias by the left

The left has criticised them for bias against minorities. For example, they ruled that trans women are not considered women for the purposes of the equality act in 2025 - possibly influenced due to bias (Women Scotland v The Scottish ministers)

what main power does the Supreme Court have

the supreme court can rule that laws and acts of public bodies are ultra vires or contravene the human rights act

example of supreme court changing govt policy - employment

In Unison v lord chancellor (2017), the supreme court ruled that the fees order, that charged fees for employment tribunals were ultra vires and were an unlawful interference in the right to access justice. The government stopped collecting fees and pledged to reimburse those it had collected.

example of Supreme Court ruling against govt - terrorism

In 2010 the supreme court ruled that the government couldn't freeze the assets of terrorist suspects when it was suspected that they would be used for terrorism

what was the reasoning for the rulings on the two brexit cases

They ruled that the Brexit secretary couldn't trigger article 50 himself because it would go against parliamentary sovereignty, an important and well established principle. They ruled that boris johnson couldn't prorogue parliament because it stopped parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions. 

how has the Supreme Court failed to change government policy

After they ruled that the government couldn't freeze the assets of suspected terrorists in 2010, the government introduced a law that allowed them to do so.

example of Supreme Court scrutinising government

They play an important role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of people in the uk. In 2024, the supreme court ruled that the (tory) government policy of deporting people first, and then allowing them to appeal, was unlawful as it deprived people of the chance of an effective appeal. None of the appeals from deported people since 2014 were successful.

when has the judiciary declared something incompatible with the hra

the law lords ruled in A and others v secretary of state for the home department in 2004 (belmarsh case) that the clause of the anti terrorism, crime and security act 2001 that allowed indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects without trial was incompatible with the hra. Although the government was critical of the ruling, in the prevention of terrorism act 2005 they replaced indefinite detention with control orders which could involve geographic confinement and curfews.

when has the Supreme Court ruled in favour of rights being derogated from

When ruling on control orders, they only ruled against their use if they deemed it disproportionate. In QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department, they ruled in favour of the use of control orders because they deemed it necessary because they reasonably suspected that the individual was aligned with Al Qaeda. 

uncontroversial Supreme Court ruling

In 2018, the supreme court ruled that the civil partnerships act 2004 was incompatible because opposite sex couples couldn't have civil partnerships. This led to the government amending the law in 2019, allowing opposite sex couples to have civil partnerships in the civil partnership (opposite sex couples) regulations 2019. This move was uncontroversial.

how is judicial review negative - practicality

in 2024 there were 3000 judicial review applications, and 10% of the 1100 that reached the permission stage were found to be totally without merit. In only 18 of the 1500 closed cases, the claimant won. It could be argued that these waste taxpayer money.

specific example of dismissed judicial review

It could be argued that they just increase costs for delivering public services. The supreme court dismissed appeals brought to it in 2014 about the government’s failure to assess the environmental impacts of HS2 

threat of judicial review for government

It could be argued that it makes ministers and govt departments too cautious, as they spend too much time considering the threat of judicial review

what has happened to the number of judicial review applications

the number of claims reached a peak in 2013, with 15,594 cases. Since then they have decreased significantly. This decrease was partly because immigration cases were moved to the upper tribunal for immigration and asylum chamber in 2014

how has the Supreme Court protected vulnerable people

in 2024 the supreme court ruled that the home office had failed to provide adequate accommodation for a mother and severely disabled child seeking asylum. 

why is having judicial review of government laws good

Judicial review ensures that the government considers the rights and laws when they act, improving the quality of decision making. Ministers and departments should be cautious not to break their own laws.