Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court now has too much influence over the executive and parliament (30)

AGREE 1

Power of Judicial review: overrule gov actions if seen as unlawful.

2010: the court ruled that the government had not acted lawfully when insisting that convicted sex offenders should be registered with the police for life. This breached the offenders’ human rights, so instead, they should be given the right to appeal against the registration after 15 years since leaving prison.

DISAGREE 1

judicial review is limited by Parliamentary sovereignty

The Supreme Court ruled that Gordon Brown’s government had acted beyond its power by freezing the economic assets of those suspected of plotting terrorist activities. In response to this, Brown passed a new piece of legislation, the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act.

AGREE 2

 

Interfere with government priorities.

Rwanda act was declared incompatible as it couldn’t be defined a “safe country“ - Delayed Gov priority to “stop the boats” by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

DISAGREE 2

The SC can’t strike down an Act of Parliament

Hirst vs UK – gave prisoners voting rights ruled that the ban violated HR. however hasn’t been implemented by government.

AGREE 3

Judges are unelected therefore have a lack of accountability so can intervene with major political decisions without consequence

The Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful

DISAGREE 3

SC serves as a necessary check on power

Miller v secretary of state for exiting the EU – government couldn’t trigger article 50 without parliamentary approval.

SC wasn’t using excessive influence over the government. Instead, it was only fulfilling its role to control abuses of power by government.