Studied by 0 people
Also applicable for: Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court operates with sufficient judicial independence and neutrality.
Argument 1 against my point
While UK SC is intended to be independent, it is not entirely insulated from external pressures.
Parliament retains authority to amend laws, and govt. can indirectly influence judiciary through legislative measures or funding allocations.
These dynamics may impede the court's autonomy and its ability to uphold neutrality in contentious cases.
Evidence 1 against my point
UK govt's proposals to reform judicial review, as seen in debates during law making process for Judicial Review and Courts Bill, could potentially undermine UK SC's ability to hold executive accountable.
Critics argue that these proposals may restrict judicial independence by limiting the court's ability to review governmental actions, thus weakening its role as check on executive power.
Argument 1 for my point
Legal Framework
The establishment of UK SC in 2009 represented a pivotal moment in reinforcing both judicial independence and neutrality.
This move effectively separated the judiciary from the legislature, bolstering its autonomy and ability to adjudicate cases impartially.
Evidence 1 for my point
In case of Unison v Lord Chancellor [2017], the UK SC ruled that employment tribunal fees imposed by govt. were unlawful.
The court's decision showcased its commitment to upholding the rule of law and its independence in reviewing government actions, thus reinforcing both judicial independence and neutrality.
Argument 2 against my point
While appointment process aims to safeguard judicial independence and neutrality, the involvement of PM in recommending candidates introduces the potential for political influence.
Although not involved a lot, the Monarch appoints judges on advice of PM and Lord Chancellor.
Lord Chancellor is also allowed to reject 1 nomination per cycle.
This could undermine public confidence in the court's impartiality, especially if appointments are perceived as politically motivated.
Evidence 2 against my point
Lord Justice Leggatt was recommended by PM BJ and subsequently appointed to the UK Supreme Court in April 2020.
Argument 2 for my point
The appointment process, though involving the PM's recommendation to the Monarch, is designed to prioritise judicial independence and neutrality.
An independent selection commission ensures that appointments are made based on merit, minimising political interference and upholding the court's integrity.
Is the JAC who is most involved.
Evidence 2 for my point
The appointment of Lord Robert Reed as President of the UK SC in 2020 exemplifies the commitment to a merit-based selection process. Lord Reed, known for his extensive experience in both Scottish and UK law, was widely respected within the legal community
Argument 3 against my point
Despite efforts to maintain neutrality, judges may still be susceptible to biases or external pressures, which could compromise both independence and neutrality in their decision-making.
Personal beliefs or political affiliations may unconsciously influence rulings, raising concerns about the court's ability to remain impartial.
Evidence 3 against my point
In Maughan v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020], concerns were raised about potential bias in judicial decision-making.
While court's ruling clarified the standard of proof in suicide verdicts, some critics questioned whether personal beliefs or external pressures influenced interpretation of the law, highlighting challenges to maintaining neutrality in judicial proceedings.
Argument 3 for my point
The UK Supreme Court has consistently demonstrated its commitment to both independence and neutrality through landmark rulings that have challenged government decisions.
Evidence 3 for my point
Notably, its unanimous decision in the 2019 prorogation case against PM BJ's suspension of Parliament underscored the court's role in upholding the rule of law and checking executive power.
