Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court is independent
Introduction Define: proportionality, voter choice, Argument:
stable government (criteria for New Largely convincing – there are some
Labour Jenkins Commission on electoral drawbacks, e.g. fewer majority govts, but
reform) AMS retains the desirable features of FPTP
while mitigating its fundamental
disadvantages e.g. limited voter choice &
highly disproportional results.
Paragraph 1: Weak argument point 1: Weak argument point 2:
Executive Though structurally independent, the Both Patel and Johnson criticized the
executive remains able to criticize the judiciary following the 2019 prorogation
Supreme Court. It is arguable that some case – labelled Supreme Court judges as
non-legal protections have come under activist. AO2: can undermine public
strain in recent years – there has long confidence in the credibility of the judiciary
existed a constitutional convention that – it is important that judges are not
the executive should not criticize judges. influenced by short-term changes in public
in 2011, Theresa May and David Cameron opinion, reflected by politicians.
criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Ministers can exert some influence over
R (F) v Secretary of State for Home the final appointment of Justices on the
Department. Supreme Court.
Strong argument point 1: Strong argument point 2:
(Counter to 1): the CRA reformed the The SC was established under the CRA
position of Lord Chancellor. Previously, the (2005). The CRA established a more
post entailed membership of all three independent appointments process: the
branches (cabinet, Speaker of HoL, and Lord Chancellor convenes an ad hoc
Head of Judiciary w/ significant influence Special Commission – previously a ‘tap on
over appointment). The CRA required Lord the shoulder’. Lord Chancellor has never
chancellors to ‘defend the independence used veto power. Importantly, the Lord
of the judiciary – in 2011, Lord Chancellor Chancellor does not sit on the select
Ken Clarke criticized May and Cameron’s commission – tempers their power.
comments. Once judges are appointed, cannot be
Justices cannot be removed by ministers as removed from office – remain in their post
a result of their decisions – they have until retirement age of 70.
security of tenure. Judges therefore selected on a neutral
basis to avoid collusion – special
commission is comprised of the President,
another UK judge, and a rep of each of the
three legal appointing bodies – diverse.
Paragraph 2: Weak argument point 1: Weak argument point 2:
Parliament Though currently disqualified from sitting
in the House of Lords, Lords Reed and Kerr
both hold life peerages. As such, they will
be able to sit in the Lords once retiring
from the Supreme Court – existing
connections to life peers possible.
Strong argument point 1: Strong argument point 2:
The CRA severed the link between the Judges are paid out of the Consolidated
House of Lords and the Supreme Court – Fund, which is not subject to annual review
Introduction Define: proportionality, voter choice, Argument:
stable government (criteria for New Largely convincing – there are some
Labour Jenkins Commission on electoral drawbacks, e.g. fewer majority govts, but
reform) AMS retains the desirable features of FPTP
while mitigating its fundamental
disadvantages e.g. limited voter choice &
highly disproportional results.
Paragraph 1: Weak argument point 1: Weak argument point 2:
Executive Though structurally independent, the Both Patel and Johnson criticized the
executive remains able to criticize the judiciary following the 2019 prorogation
Supreme Court. It is arguable that some case – labelled Supreme Court judges as
non-legal protections have come under activist. AO2: can undermine public
strain in recent years – there has long confidence in the credibility of the judiciary
existed a constitutional convention that – it is important that judges are not
the executive should not criticize judges. influenced by short-term changes in public
in 2011, Theresa May and David Cameron opinion, reflected by politicians.
criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Ministers can exert some influence over
R (F) v Secretary of State for Home the final appointment of Justices on the
Department. Supreme Court.
Strong argument point 1: Strong argument point 2:
(Counter to 1): the CRA reformed the The SC was established under the CRA
position of Lord Chancellor. Previously, the (2005). The CRA established a more
post entailed membership of all three independent appointments process: the
branches (cabinet, Speaker of HoL, and Lord Chancellor convenes an ad hoc
Head of Judiciary w/ significant influence Special Commission – previously a ‘tap on
over appointment). The CRA required Lord the shoulder’. Lord Chancellor has never
chancellors to ‘defend the independence used veto power. Importantly, the Lord
of the judiciary – in 2011, Lord Chancellor Chancellor does not sit on the select
Ken Clarke criticized May and Cameron’s commission – tempers their power.
comments. Once judges are appointed, cannot be
Justices cannot be removed by ministers as removed from office – remain in their post
a result of their decisions – they have until retirement age of 70.
security of tenure. Judges therefore selected on a neutral
basis to avoid collusion – special
commission is comprised of the President,
another UK judge, and a rep of each of the
three legal appointing bodies – diverse.
Paragraph 2: Weak argument point 1: Weak argument point 2:
Parliament Though currently disqualified from sitting
in the House of Lords, Lords Reed and Kerr
both hold life peerages. As such, they will
be able to sit in the Lords once retiring
from the Supreme Court – existing
connections to life peers possible.
Strong argument point 1: Strong argument point 2:
The CRA severed the link between the Judges are paid out of the Consolidated
House of Lords and the Supreme Court – Fund, which is not subject to annual review
