Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The judiciary 3 (judges protecting rights and liberties (civil rights…
The judiciary 3
judges protecting rights and liberties
civil rights
legal enticement to behave in a certain way
allowing all citizens to live lives without impediment
freedom from discrimination
civil liberties
fundamental freedoms established for good of community
right to life
freedom of expression
freedom of religion and conscience
freedom of movement
freedom of association
protected in the uk courts through human rights act 1998
also protected in the European court of human rights
Are judges becoming to political
judges been drawn into party politics
HRA act 1998 evidence of this happening - rulings on merits of the act
politicians publicly criticising rulings
factortame case - courts can suspend acts if not fit with eu law
Supreme Court justices in public/media spotlight
Brexit 2017
rulings in UK court applying eu law seem to be hostile to uk gov
becoming less politicised
selection/appointment more transparent
judges more independent since CRA 2005
increasing conflict between to is good shows courts will challenge gov
security of tenure and guaranteed salaries protect judges
judicial activism
courts vs thatcher/major
centralised gov led to local authorities defending position in courts
restraints on trade unions meant court made decisions on ticketing etc
1990s HRA led to hostility between politicians and judges
courts vs labour
HRA 1998 led to further politicisation of the judiciary
went against ministers decisions
e.g. anti-terrorism and crime and security act 2001
senior judges spoken out about freedom of info
judges vs politicians
clashing judges and politicans
human rights act and national security
terrorist suspects held in prison without trial in 2004
judges ruled this was an abuse of their human rights
politicians felt they should restrict human rights for national secruity
Privacy Laws
super injunctions by celebrities 2011
allowed on right to privacy, only restricted if it is in the public interest
politicians felt it restricted freedom of press, widely interpreted by judges
Jamie Bulgers killers release 2001
2 10 yrs boys murdered 2 yrs old boy
ruled to protect identity of boys till 18
sparked public outrage
supreme court ruling over brexit
article 50 triggered without parliaments approval
needed parliaments approval because we joined eu under parliament act
politicians felt it restricted will of people