Relations between the branches

supreme court

• highest court of appeals in the land

• for a case to be heard, they have to go through a series of stages and processes of courts, increasing from eg. local to supreme court

• high-profile cases eg. human rights cases are prominent there

• comprised of 12 senior judges with a president of the supreme court

supreme court declaration of incompatibility

• supreme court can challenge statute law by declaring them incompatible with the human rights act (1998)

• as the executive generally has a majority in parliament, it provides a check on the legislative programme and may lead to amendments on legislation in response to supreme court rulings

• however the declaration of incompatibility is not legally binding as human rights act is statute law

• parliament is free to determine what action is taken - significant limitation on court’s ability to check government

supreme court’s influence on the government and parliament

• courts enforce echr (hra which brought into uk law)

• courts can declare legislation incompatible with echr/hra

• courts impose common law which asserts individual rights

• courts impose rule of law, to ensure citizens are treated equally

• courts can declare that a body has acted ultra vires (beyond its powers)

• public inquiries can often force governments to take action

however

• important to remember uk supreme court is limited in some ways compared to other supreme courts

• doesn’t have higher constitutional law to refer to (like america does with its constitution) as the uk is uncodified but the supreme court can refer to the echr and the human rights act

tensions between the judiciary and the executive

• expectation that legislation should be compatible with hra and echr

• if not, then judges can issue formal incompatibility with echr

• but as parliament is sovereign law can still stand

• shows limits of human right act

executive control over parliament

• with a majority, a govt can expect to win every vote

• pm can control party through patronage and whips

• govt controls timetable of parliament

• collective responsibility means govt presents united front

• house of lords lacks legitimacy, cannot veto legislation and is restricted by salisbury convention

• govt supported by large number of civil servants and advisers, other mps don’t have this support

legislative checks over the executive

• backbench rebellions can occur and can be very powerful

• brexit was very difficult to get passed due to strong divisions within conservative parties

• committees can play crucial role in scrutiny of executive

• house of lords can apply important amendments to legislation

• backbench business committee increased backbench influence

• ultimate check - vote of no confidence

increase in legitimacy in the house of lords

• since removal of most of hereditary peers and replacement with life peers, house of lords can claim greater professional expertise and become much more self-confident in opposing govt legislation and lost its conservative majority and becoming more balanced

• although powers of house of lords have not changed, peers’ willingness to use them has

how executive is limited by parliamentary power

• votes of no confidence

• votes against legislation

• committees

• ministerial questions

how judiciary is limited by parliamentary power

• parliamentary sovereignty

how parliament is limited by executive power

• royal prerogative

• executive usually has a majority

• whip system

• executive controls a lot of the timetable of parliament

• fusion of powers

how judiciary is limited by executive power

• ignoring of incompatibility statements (because we don’t have codified constitution, supreme court can’t strike down acts as being unconstitutional)

how parliament is limited by judicial power

• issuance of incompatibility statements (strengthened by hra and other equality legislation)

how executive is limited by judicial power

• judicial power