Evaluate the view that Supreme Court has too much power for an unelected and unaccountable body

Weaker counterargument:
The Supreme Court’s power is limited and appropriately checked within the UK’s constitutional framework.
Explanation:
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established the Supreme Court to enhance judicial independence by separating it from Parliament. Judges have security of tenure and their appointments are largely free from political influence due to the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
Evidence:
The JAC controls 97% of lower court appointments, judges cannot be removed except for proven corruption, and judicial pay is set independently to prevent political manipulation.
Stronger argument:
Despite these safeguards, the Supreme Court effectively exercises significant power by overruling or restricting actions of elected bodies, raising democratic concerns.
Explanation:
Although unelected, the Supreme Court has repeatedly checked both Parliament and the executive, notably in cases involving Brexit and prorogation, demonstrating power over political decisions.
Evidence:
The 2016 and 2019 Miller cases confirmed that the Government could not trigger Article 50 or prorogue Parliament without parliamentary approval, illustrating the Court’s influence over executive decisions.

Weaker counterargument:
The Supreme Court cannot overturn Acts of Parliament, so it does not possess ultimate power over legislation or democracy.
Explanation:
UK sovereignty rests with Parliament, which can amend or repeal laws even after judicial rulings. The Supreme Court only interprets laws but cannot create or nullify legislation.
Evidence:
In the Rwanda Plan legislation, the Court could not stop the plan despite challenges, showing its inability to override Parliament’s will. Similarly, the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill was vetoed by Westminster Parliament, not the Court.
Stronger argument:
However, by interpreting laws expansively and limiting executive actions, the Supreme Court influences political outcomes and policy, effectively exercising significant authority.
Explanation:
The Court’s rulings often shape the practical limits of government power and can obstruct or compel policy changes, which affects elected government agendas without direct democratic mandate.
Evidence:
The Court blocked Boris Johnson’s prorogation in 2019 and struck down the legality of the second Scottish Independence Referendum in 2022, demonstrating its role in political disputes.

Weaker counterargument:
The Supreme Court is accountable through legal processes and public scrutiny, and maintains neutrality through judicial training and recusal rules.
Explanation:
Judges undergo extensive training, adhere to strict neutrality, and recuse themselves if conflicts arise. Decisions are subject to peer review and can be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Evidence:
The 2012 fines on media outlets for contempt of court protect judicial independence and fairness; also, the Lady Chief Justice warned against political interference in judiciary in 2025, reflecting institutional efforts to maintain independence.
Stronger argument:
Yet, the Court faces intense political and media criticism, highlighting a lack of democratic accountability and public trust, especially given its unelected status.
Explanation:
Judges have been attacked as ‘enemies of the people’ in media, accused of liberal bias after high-profile rulings, and politicians have proposed reforms to curb judicial independence, raising questions about legitimacy.
Evidence:
The Daily Mail’s 2016 attacks on Miller case judges, Johnson’s threats after 2019 rulings, and criticism by ministers like Priti Patel and Dominic Cummings show political backlash against the Court’s decisions.