Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court can no longer be described as a neutral body [30]
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:
The diversity of the Supreme Court has Also note the SC’s lack of ethnic diversity –
also raised questions around its capacity only one not Oxbridge educated, and al
for neutrality: Radmarcher v Granatino white.
2010 centred around whether prenuptial Despite the CRA 2005 establishing a largely
agreements should be given decisive independent appointments process,
weight in divorce proceedings. Lady Hale ministers can exert some influence over
wrote a dissenting opinion to the other 8 the final appointment of justices on the
Justice, and said ‘in short there is a gender Supreme Court, undermining neutrality.
dimension to the issue which some may
think ill-suited to a decision by a court
consisting of eight men and one woman.
Strong argument point 1: Strong argument point 2:
Supreme Court judges are held The SC was established under the CRA
accountable for their rulings: they must (2005). The CRA established a more
explain in writing their formal opinion and independent appointments process: the
announce it, as Lady Hale did following the Lord Chancellor convenes an ad hoc
2019 case R (Miller) v The Prime Minister. Special Commission – previously a ‘tap on
Justices are also prohibited from joining the shoulder’. Lord Chancellor has never
political parties, used veto power. Importantly, the Lord
Chancellor does not sit on the select
Extensive legal training. Kilmuir rules. commission – tempers their power.
Senior judges held accountable for their Once judges are appointed, cannot be
rulings by explaining them in writing. removed from office – remain in their post
until retirement age of 70.
The pay and rewards of judges are Judges therefore selected on a neutral
safeguarded from political influence – they basis to avoid collusion – special
are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, commission is comprised of the President,
which is not overseen by the Commons. 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:
Politicised. Some newspapers raised questions around Similarly, others also argued that the
the neutrality of the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court was intervening in Brexit/
ruling against the executive in the case R political matters in the 2019 prorogation
(Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the case – Johnson attempting to pass Brexit
European Union: four of the justices had deal.
professional links to the EU; five had
expressed sympathetic views towards the
EU; six had personal relationships with
people who had criticized Brexit. Only four
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:
The diversity of the Supreme Court has Also note the SC’s lack of ethnic diversity –
also raised questions around its capacity only one not Oxbridge educated, and al
for neutrality: Radmarcher v Granatino white.
2010 centred around whether prenuptial Despite the CRA 2005 establishing a largely
agreements should be given decisive independent appointments process,
weight in divorce proceedings. Lady Hale ministers can exert some influence over
wrote a dissenting opinion to the other 8 the final appointment of justices on the
Justice, and said ‘in short there is a gender Supreme Court, undermining neutrality.
dimension to the issue which some may
think ill-suited to a decision by a court
consisting of eight men and one woman.
Strong argument point 1: Strong argument point 2:
Supreme Court judges are held The SC was established under the CRA
accountable for their rulings: they must (2005). The CRA established a more
explain in writing their formal opinion and independent appointments process: the
announce it, as Lady Hale did following the Lord Chancellor convenes an ad hoc
2019 case R (Miller) v The Prime Minister. Special Commission – previously a ‘tap on
Justices are also prohibited from joining the shoulder’. Lord Chancellor has never
political parties, used veto power. Importantly, the Lord
Chancellor does not sit on the select
Extensive legal training. Kilmuir rules. commission – tempers their power.
Senior judges held accountable for their Once judges are appointed, cannot be
rulings by explaining them in writing. removed from office – remain in their post
until retirement age of 70.
The pay and rewards of judges are Judges therefore selected on a neutral
safeguarded from political influence – they basis to avoid collusion – special
are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, commission is comprised of the President,
which is not overseen by the Commons. 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:
Politicised. Some newspapers raised questions around Similarly, others also argued that the
the neutrality of the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court was intervening in Brexit/
ruling against the executive in the case R political matters in the 2019 prorogation
(Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the case – Johnson attempting to pass Brexit
European Union: four of the justices had deal.
professional links to the EU; five had
expressed sympathetic views towards the
EU; six had personal relationships with
people who had criticized Brexit. Only four
