Judiciary is too powerful and political… Judiciary is not powerful or political…
-Final court of appeal and most senior justices set final precedent in -Parliament is legally sovereign – statue law can override com
common law so quasi-legislative -Cant strike down an Act of Parliament, only persuasive autho
-Judicial review – decides cases against public bodies in terms of ‘ultra -Gov can ignore rulings of incompatibility
vires’ -Court cant initiate cases
-Establishes where sovereignty is within the UK -Court cant make judgments beyond the jurisdiction of the law
-Determines when HRA is applies incompatibility, builds pressure and precedent – no ‘natural justice’
rules on merit of statue law -Court’s role = positive, to defense civil liberties as HRA can be
-Increased independence = increased media attention and power in times of national emergency
UK judiciary has had a greater impact on the work of the UK judiciary has not had a greater impact on th
executive and parliament in recent years… executive and parliament in recent years
• The Constitutional Reform Act (2005) enhanced judicial independence by
reducing the role of Lord Chancellor and removed the UK’s most senior judges • The physical relocation of the UK’s top court to its new accommodation
from the House of Lords symbolic, did little to change the legal-constitutional relationship betwe
• By creating a clearer physical separation between the judiciary and the the executive and the legislature
government (by relocating the SC to Middlesex Guildhall) also allowed the most • Although HRA gives judges the right to issue a ‘declaration of incompati
senior judges to come out of the shadows and develop a more public profile Act of Parliament appears to have violated the ECHR, parliament is und
• By allowing cases under the ECHR to be heard in UK courts, the HRA 1998 obligation to fall into line with the Court’s ruling
empowered the UK’s most senior judges to directly question Acts of Parliament • While senior judges have the ability to rule that ministers in the executi
as well as the actions of those working in the executive beyond their statutory authority, those very ministers can use the execu
• The precedent established under the Factortame Case (1990) allowed senior parliament to pass retrospective legislation legitimizing their earlier acti
judges to suspend the actions of both parliament and the executive where • Although the scope and scale of EU law expanded significantly after Ma
either branch appeared to have breached EU law the EU meant that the UK would not be subject to EU law beyond the tr
• The extension of EU law in the wake of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) brought so reducing the scope for judicial action
senior UK judges into conflict with both the executive and parliament across a • Any move to review the status of the HRA or limit its scope as some hav
far wider range of policy areas than had previously been the case would significantly reduce the ability of the SC to exercise control over t
• This growth in judicial action had a further, indirect impact – those in the the executive or parliament
executive and in parliament increasingly looked to head off potential conflict in
the courts by ensuring that all legislation was HRA and EU compliant before
seeking to pass it into statue (eg. Committees in Parliament which scrutinse
through the lens of human rights)
-Final court of appeal and most senior justices set final precedent in -Parliament is legally sovereign – statue law can override com
common law so quasi-legislative -Cant strike down an Act of Parliament, only persuasive autho
-Judicial review – decides cases against public bodies in terms of ‘ultra -Gov can ignore rulings of incompatibility
vires’ -Court cant initiate cases
-Establishes where sovereignty is within the UK -Court cant make judgments beyond the jurisdiction of the law
-Determines when HRA is applies incompatibility, builds pressure and precedent – no ‘natural justice’
rules on merit of statue law -Court’s role = positive, to defense civil liberties as HRA can be
-Increased independence = increased media attention and power in times of national emergency
UK judiciary has had a greater impact on the work of the UK judiciary has not had a greater impact on th
executive and parliament in recent years… executive and parliament in recent years
• The Constitutional Reform Act (2005) enhanced judicial independence by
reducing the role of Lord Chancellor and removed the UK’s most senior judges • The physical relocation of the UK’s top court to its new accommodation
from the House of Lords symbolic, did little to change the legal-constitutional relationship betwe
• By creating a clearer physical separation between the judiciary and the the executive and the legislature
government (by relocating the SC to Middlesex Guildhall) also allowed the most • Although HRA gives judges the right to issue a ‘declaration of incompati
senior judges to come out of the shadows and develop a more public profile Act of Parliament appears to have violated the ECHR, parliament is und
• By allowing cases under the ECHR to be heard in UK courts, the HRA 1998 obligation to fall into line with the Court’s ruling
empowered the UK’s most senior judges to directly question Acts of Parliament • While senior judges have the ability to rule that ministers in the executi
as well as the actions of those working in the executive beyond their statutory authority, those very ministers can use the execu
• The precedent established under the Factortame Case (1990) allowed senior parliament to pass retrospective legislation legitimizing their earlier acti
judges to suspend the actions of both parliament and the executive where • Although the scope and scale of EU law expanded significantly after Ma
either branch appeared to have breached EU law the EU meant that the UK would not be subject to EU law beyond the tr
• The extension of EU law in the wake of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) brought so reducing the scope for judicial action
senior UK judges into conflict with both the executive and parliament across a • Any move to review the status of the HRA or limit its scope as some hav
far wider range of policy areas than had previously been the case would significantly reduce the ability of the SC to exercise control over t
• This growth in judicial action had a further, indirect impact – those in the the executive or parliament
executive and in parliament increasingly looked to head off potential conflict in
the courts by ensuring that all legislation was HRA and EU compliant before
seeking to pass it into statue (eg. Committees in Parliament which scrutinse
through the lens of human rights)
