Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Relations between institutions - Coggle Diagram
Relations between institutions
The Supreme Court
Established in the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 and first opened on the 1st of October 2009.
The Supreme Court was created to end the fusion of powers that had existed beforehand.
Before the Supreme Court was created the highest court in the UK was the Law Lords in the House of Lords, reform was intened to increase transparency, inderpenedence and bring the UK in line with other modern democracies.
The Constiutional Reform Act of 2005 also changed the role of the lord chancelor who was a cabinet minister (executive), chairman of sittings of the House of Lords (legislative) and head of the judicary (judicary).
The Constitutional Reform Act removed the lord chancelors role as chaiman of the HoL (a role now appointed by peers) and judges are now selected by an independent committee.
Role of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is the only UK wide court and acts as the final court of appeal for all rulings made by lower courts (criminal cases for England, Wales and Northern Ireland and civil cases for every part of the UK).
The Supreme Court also hears issues of legal or constitutional importances for the wider public.
Appointment/make up of members to the Supreme Court
There is only one female justice.
Before selection justices will usally have worked as a senoir judge for 2 years or a qualified lawyer for at least 15 years.
When a vacancy occurs an independent 5 member selection committee is created that is made up of: president and deputy president of the court, a member of the Judical Appointments Commission and a member from the equivlient bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The lord chancellor (justice secretary) may reject nominations, but may no do this repeatedly and once a name has been agreed the PM then Monarch confirms them.
There are 12 justices in the UK, but all cases are heard with an odd number of justices so a majority decision can be made (normally 5 or 9 justices take part in a hearing).
Key principles of the Supreme Court
Judical neutrality
Judical neutrality
-- this is the idea that the judicary should be free from political infleunce, either governmental or personal.
Ways of ensuring juducial neutrality
Conflicts of interests
-- judges must not sit in a case relating to a family member, friend or professional associate as this could raise doubts about the justice's detachment.
Public activities
-- judges may write and give lectures to educate the public, but they must avoid political activity. Judges may sit on government commissions as long as they don't compromise political neutrality.
Problems
The biggest problem facing judicial neutrality is the fact that the judiciary is dominated by white, privileged, privately educated men.
In the 2010 case Radmacher v Granatino (a case involving pre-nups) held up the view that claims made in the event of divorce would be limited, but the dissenting justice (Lady Hale) argued that this would disproportionaly impact women.
Judical independence
Judical independence
-- this is the principle that judges should not be infleunced by other branches of government, particullary the executive.
Ways of ensuring independence
Terms of employement
-- Judges can't be removed from office unless they break the law and they are imune from legal actions arising from comments they make during a case; the only limit is an offical retirement age (which is 70).
Pay
-- Judge's salaries come from the Consolidated Fund, which pays them automatically and is safe from ministerial intervention.
Howerever, its budget is not entierly independent and during austrity, cuts to the judicary also meant cuts to the Supreme Court.
Appointment
-- The Judical Appointment Commission and the Selection Commission for the Supreme Court are transparent in their procedure and free from political intervention.
Seperation of powers
-- The Supreme Court is physically seperated from governemnt and no longer shares staff and members may not be judges and peers andn the same time.
Why is idependence important
People must be confident that when they are in conflict with the state that the judicary will be impatial and rule how they believe is best.
How powerful is the Supreme Court
The SC can issue a deceleration of incompatability with the 1998 Human Rights Act and it is expected the law to be modified to meet the HRA, however, parliamentry soverignty means this voulantry.
This drastically limits the power of the Supreme Court, because it means that it can't effectvily act and it is clearly subordinate to parliament.
The Supreme Court does have the power of judical review.
The Supreme Court may inquire as to whether ministers have followed the corect procedures and if they have not they can force the executive to change course.
This is how the SC revoked Johnson's porrogation of parliament.
The Supreme Court can invistage whether govenrment departments have acted within their powers (or have they acted Ultra vires (beyond their power)) and can stop them if they have not.
The Supreme Court lacks power's over the legislature, but is powerful over the executive.
Supreme Court rullings can be challanged by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but it is common for the government to side with the Supreme Court in cases of dispute.
Shown by cases on prisoner voting and on life sentances.
Has the Supreme Court become politicised?
Yes
The 1998 Human Rights Act has forced judges into the political fray by forcing them to decide on individual pieces of legislation.
Seperation of powers has meant that their is increased scrunity of the judicary.
Politicans have brocken the convention on not speaking about cases before the Supreme Court.
No
The appointment process is more open, remving political infleunce from the selection process (unlike in the US).
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has increased their independence, reducing politicans infleunce of them.
Increased conflict between politicans and judges is good as it shows the judicary is asserting itself as a part of the governemnt.
Senpir judges have security of tenure and guarnteed salaries, removing political infleunce as their jobs and income are protected from politicans.
Parliament and the executive
Reasons for executive dominence:
FPTP tends to deliever a single party government with a large majority.
Whips and power of patronage give the PM lots of power over their party and therefore parliament.
Governemnt dominates the legisaltive agenda.
The Salisbury Convention and the Parliament Acts have reduced opposition from the House of Lords.
Elective dictatorship
-- this is the idea that whichever party wins an election has near unlimited power, it is strongly linked to the idea of parliamentry soverignty.
Parliamentry soverignty
-- this is the main constitutional theory within the UK and is the idea that parliament is the ultimate power in UK politics and can't be bound by any other force (inclduing prevouis parlaiments).
How parliament controls the executive
Parliament is soverign
The executive must follow whatever parliament legislates.
Comittees
Departmental select committees scruntise each govenrment department.
Committees can propose amendments to legislation.
Despite the executive's party having the most committee members, opposition parties can still weild power wthin them and government party members in committees may go against the governemnt.
Reserve powers
There are certian powers that only parliament (and mostly the House of Commons) have that enable them to control the executive.
E.g. votes of no confidence.
PMQ's and ministers questions
Enable MPs to ask questions and scruntise government policy and action.
When the governemnt is small or lacks a majority they need to ensure loyalty within their party and work with other parties.
This forces the executive to cooperate with the legislature, reducing the executives power.
The executive comes from the legislature (and primarily the HoC).
Backbench MPs and the opposition
Reforms to parliament have increased the power of these groups.
The BBBC (Back Bench Business Committee) can set the agenda of debates for 35 days of the year and through the BBBC the idea of a EU referendum was first floated.
Opposition days enable the opposition parties to control the agenda for 20 days of a sitting parliament.
The House of Lords
Less controled by the executive as peers are not looking for carrer progression.
The House of Lords can amend legislation, scruntise bills and give publicity to opposition to a bill.
How the executive controls parliament
Control of the largest party in parliament.
It is very rare for a PM to lack an abosulte majority. The system of party whips and the PMs power of patronage they can control their party and therefore the legisalture.
Blair did not loose a vote in parliament until 2005.
Powers of patronage.
The power to appoint people to the cabinet gives the PM a large amount of sway within their party to support loyalists and quel rebellions.
This helps ensure party support for legislation.
The PM also has some powers to sack civil servants in the PM's office and appoint peers, but these powers are less important.
This eneables the executive to control the progression of their own backbench MPs, further encrouging loyalty.
Limiting the power of the House of Lords.
Conventions such as the Salisbury convention have weakned the ability of the House of Lords to challange the executives political agenda.
Constitutional reforms such as the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 have reduced the power of the HoL in blocking laws (which they can now only delay for a year).
Rise in secodary legislation.
Limitted powers of committees.
Committees can't force people to be witnesses and can't force the governemnt to take action on amendments. There only real power is they can force a minister to respond to one of their reports, however they do not need to do anything else.
Debates and PMQs have become electoral theater and no longer produce genuine, effective scrunity of the governemnt.
However, it can be argued that during the time of partygate PMQs helped for Johnson into a corner leading to him possibly lying to parliament.
The EU
The three rules of the EU:
All countries pay membership dues.
All citizens of member states may vote in EU elections.
All citizens aof member states are citizens of the EU.
Free movement was key to the EU and focused on the free movement of four concepts:
Free movement of goods.
Free movement of services.
Free movement of people
Free movement of capital.
Breif histroy of UK membership of the EU:
Joined the EEC in 1973 and in 1975 67% of people voted to remain in the EEC (this was the first national referendum).
The 2008 financial crash, Eurozone crisis and the refugee crisis stimulated eurosceptism.
In 2013 Cameron pleged and EU referendum if he won the election.
In 2016 the UK voted to leave by a margin of 52-48.
Brexit's impact on Northern Ireland
The orginal deal would see Northern Ireland remain in the customs union and would create a semi-border in the Irish sea. This led to the unionist refusing to form a governemnt.
Created a constitutional crisis.
A renegoatited deal removed checks on goods solely going to Northern Ireland (a green lane) and this has helped reduce checks, however, the DUP still refuse to form a government.
Brexit and soverignty
Membership of the EU did create an important constitutional question over whether parliament could retain its sovereignty while being a member. It was concluded that as parliament could take the UK out of the EU at its will then it had not lost soviergnty.
One of the driving forces for Brexit was to help the UK regain soverignty by enabling parliament to fully legislate on all issues.
Soverignty in the UK
Political soverignty
-- this lies in the people as they elect parliament.
Legal soverignty
-- as all statue laws are passed by Parliament this gives it legal soverignty.
Policy soverignty
-- this is the agenda and policies that stem from the manifesto and this lies with the government.
Has the UK surrenders soviergy:
Yes
The Supreme Court now has powers of judical review and ultra-vires.
The Supeme Court is able to issue decelerations of incompatability.
Devolution has handed some legal soverignty to the devolved powers.
Referendums can be argued as giving people policy and legal soveirgty as they are able to effectivly pass laws through referendums.
No
Parliament may ignore declerations of incompatability, even if this looks politicall bad.
Parliament may ignore referendums as they are non-binding.
All the powers of the devolved bodies exist because parliament has given them to them (same for the Supreme Court) and they are only politcally entrenched. This means that parliament may revoke them.
In the end, parliament remains soverign and controls who has power within the UK
The executive can block legislation passed by the devolved powers. For example as they did when they block the Gender Recorgnition Reform Bill passed by the Scotish Parliament.