| What does the term Judiciary mean? | -A Term that refers to the Legal system in a given Nation. The Senior Judiciary are the Judges and Courts that wields Political Significance |
| What is the role of the Judiciary? | -Dispensing Justice: Hearing Criminal Cases and Civil Disputes
-Interpreting Laws: When the law becomes hard to apply, or its definition is unclear, the Judiciary is there to say the True Meaning
-Esatbalishing Case Law: Judges choose how the Law Applies to different kinds of Cases. When done, the other Courts follow through.
-Impact on the Development of Law: Sometimes it is the Judiciary that makes the law. Judges can make laws by Declaring what the Law should be as we Understand it. This is called a Judicial Precedent
-Judicial Review: Power to review Government or other Bodies actions and if they are Lawful. (ultra vires)
-Public Inquires: Holding inquiries into Major Public Concern topics and gives Action to Parliament and Government |
| What is Common Law? | -Law that isn't Written down necessary, but which the Court declares as Valid based on how they have existed for a Long Time Period. They are accepted by the People as law, and usually concerns with Rights that people has. This law is passed via Judicial Precendents |
| What are the Key Features of the British Supreme Court? | -Highest court in the United Kingdom
-Only Parliament in Britain can overturn the Decisions made by the Supreme Court via New Legislation |
| Describe the Membership of the Supreme Court? | -12 Senior Judges with Extensive Legal Experience
-Head of the Court is President of the UKSC
-Judges appointed by an Independent Panel of Nation's Senior Legal Figures - Separate from British Politics |
| Describe the Role of the UKSC? | -The Final Court of Appeal for all Civil Cases in UK and Criminal Cases apart from Scotland
-Concentrates on the Greatest Public and Constitutional Importance
-May hear Constitutional, Criminal, and Civil law cases. Also on Arguable Points of Law - giving Clarification to the Meaning and Application of the Law |
| Why is the Case: Schindler vs Duchy of Lancaster Important? | -2016: Relating on the Important Matter on the Right to Vote, the Issue was should UK Citizens who lived Abroad for 15 Years or more be able to Vote in the 2016 EU Referendum. The Outcome was that No, the Citizens had forfeited their Rights by living Away for so Long |
| Why is the Case: Miller Important? | -2017: The Prime Minister Prerogative Powers on Treaties and Diplomacy was the matter here. The Case had challenged the PM saying they could Trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The Court sided that Parliament must give the PM power. Parliamentary Sovereignty Triumphs |
| Why is the Case: Miller II Important? | -2019: The PM Prerogative Powers again, on Suspending Parliament. The Case advised the Monarch to Suspend Parliament. This would of allowed Johnson to not get any Scrutiny on the Brexit Plan. Obviously the Court ruled against this, saying the reasoning for the Monarch to Suspend Parliament is unlawful as the Intention was to evade Scrutiny |
| Why is the Case: Friends of the Earth vs Heathrow Airport Important? | -2020: Looked into if the UK Government was ignoring the Climate Change Commitments under the Paris Agreements, by allowing a Third Runaway in Heathrow Airport. The Court stated the Runway could still be built, as the UK Government still took the legal Obligation regarding the Environment into Account |
| What is Judicial Neutrality? | -Refers to the idea that Judges shouldn't be Influenced by Personal Opinions and remain Outside of Party Politics |
| What does Judicial Neutrality imply? | -Judges are not Political Bias
-Judges not Bias against any Section of Society
-Judges base Judgements on the Principles of Law and Justices
-Judges can not be Dismissing for their Judgements |
| What does Judicial Independence mean? | -Refers to the idea that the Judiciary is Free from Political Interference and Criticism - Especially from the Executive |
| Why is Judicial Independence Important for a Democratic State? | -Judges must Enforce the Rule of Law with no External Pressure
-Judges hear Political Important cases, which Involves the Government. No Pressure from Government is thus Allowed
-Judges must protect the Rights of Citizens without fears of a Government Retribution
-A Check on Executive Power |
| How is Judicial Independence Held up? | -Judges appointed for Life, can not be Dismissed if Government disagrees with their Judgements
-Judge's Incomes not Threatened if they go Against the Government
-Judges appointment Process is Independent from Government
-Duty of Government to protect Judges from External Pressure |
| How can it be described that the Judiciary and the Supreme Court is Independent and Neutral? | -Judges are Experiences Layers who have been used to Serving the Law, and the Rule of Law in a Neutral, not Bias, Fashion
-Since the Constitution Act of 2005, an Independent Judicial Appointments Commission has been Created, Candidates for Judicial Appointments are more Clear and Apolitical
-The UKSC led to a Split from the Executive and the Legislature. The Court is in a Different Building
-The 'Sub-Judice' rule in Both Houses of Parliaments means MPs and Peers can not Discuss about Current or Impending Court Cases
-Judges been Openly Criticizing Government Decisions. 2023 saw Sunak's Rwanda Bill stopped at the UKSC due to the unlawfulness it Possessed. Rwanda is not a Safe Nation |
| How can it be described that the Judiciary and the Supreme Court is NOT Independent and Neutral? | -Lack of Social Diversity in Senior Judiciary means Changes can be made that sadly are Biased towards some Groups, often already Disappointed by the Criminal Justice System (Women.) Shamima Begum is an Example.
-Political Input still exists. The Selection Responsibility rests with the Lord Chancellor, itself appointed by the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor can Reject the JAC Suggestions
-The UKSC was Cosmetic - the Powers of the UKSC is the same as the Law Lords. Being able to hold the Government to Account is still Limiting
-MPs and the Media Question the UKSC Decisions. The Daily Mail ran headline: 'Supreme Court judges were 'enemies of the people' over the Court Decisions relating to Brexit. This may make the UKSC less likely to make such Tough Decisions.
-Being critical of the Government, Judges may be Independently, but not acting Neutral
-Parliament can Limit the Power and Impendence of the Judiciary. 2019 Manifesto saw the Conservatives to Review the UKSC Powers after the Brexit Court Rulings |
| How Effective is the Supreme Court in Protecting the Rights of Citizens? | -UKSC using the Incompatibility Statements from the Human Rights Act allows it to Intervene and say Laws may be Breaking the HRA
-UKSC Interpret the ECHR as well: Brewster Case (2017) confirmed that Cohabiting Couples had the same Pension Rights as Married Couples in the ECHR
-UKSC enforces the Rule of Law: Cadder v HM Advocate 2020 found Scottish Police breaking the ECHR and the Scotland Act 1998 in how they Detained Suspects
-Asserts Common Law Rights: Dover District Council vs CPRE Kent 2017: Court ruled when Planning Permission is Granted against Professionals Advice, Local Authorities must, through Common Law, state Reasons for doing so
-UKSC rules on Freedom of Information Cases: Evans vs Attorney General 2015: The Court ruled stating the Government withholding Information that Prince Charles said about Gov Departments was unlawful |
| How can the UKSC be Limited in protecting the Rights of Citizens. | -Incompatibility Statements are not Binding upon Parliament
-UKSC has 0 Enforcement Power: Environmental Groups claimed the Government has been Slow to Court Rulings stating the Gov breached Air Quality Laws
-Rule of the Law is what Politicians say it is. No Entrenchment of the Constitution means Governments can use Acts to overturn Rights
-Rights better confirmed by Parliament, and also gives Greater Legitimacy: Overseas Operation Act was Passed by UK Parliament and gave legal Protections to Veterans and Military Personnel.
-Government has kept trying to reduce the Freedom of Information Act: Following the Royal Correspondence, The Freedom of Information Act was Amended to Exempt the Royal Family from the Scope of the Act |
