Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Relationships between branches p1 - Coggle Diagram
Relationships between branches p1
Supreme Court?
What is the Supreme Court?
based across the road from parliament (Middle-sex Guildhall)
the highest court in the UK - 'guardian' of countries constitutional affairs
only court that can rule on UK-wide matters
in England, Wales and NI it serves as the final court of appeal
only matters of great public or constitutional importance are here
Johnson decision to prorogue parliament (2019) was dealt with by the supreme court
the court can rule but not overturn legislation and acts of parliament
Supreme Court judges have unique power to reverse the rulings of all lower courts
sometimes a case in a lower court must be decided a particular way due to the bindings of the supreme court which tells them how to act
however, the supreme court can say that the lower courts are wrong
make new case law (when rejecting earlier rulings) and can interpret parliamentary law
Structure:
Supreme court
Criminal:
Court of appeal
^
|
Crown court
^
|
Magistrates court
Civil:
Court of appeal
^
|
high court of justice (Queen's Bench, Chancery & Family)
^
|
County Courts
Why introduced?
a relative newcomer to the British political stage
Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Supreme Court opened 1st Oct 2009
an attempt to introduce 'separation of powers', removed Law Lords from Parliament
there was a 'fusion of powers' between judiciary and parliament before Tony Blair's gov
the Lord Chancellor's role was changed to remove the power of appointment, which sent to the independent Judicial Appointment Commission
Composition of the Supreme Court:
headed by the president, currently Lord Reed
one President, one Deputy President, and 10 Justices
12 justicies make up the Supreme Court, always an odd number hear cases
criticised for lack of diversity, for a while Baroness Hale was only female on the bench, now Lady Rose is the only female
currently, no representation of any minority groups
12 currently:
11 male, 1 female
10 oxbridge, 1 manchester
8 private school, 4 state
7 English, 2 Scottish, 1 Northern Ireland, 1 Wales
12 white
Ultra vires -
action taken by the government or public body that is 'beyond their powers'
Judicial review -
a case investigating the lawfulness of action by a government or public body
Constitutional law:
Miller V Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), Miller argued gov could not trigger article 50 without vote or debate in parliament, Miller won & commons voted
Miller vs The PM (2019), Miller challenged PM's power to prorogue parliament, denying parliament the time to effectively scrutinise the Brexit Deal, Miller won & parliament returned immediately - case of judicial review
Civil Law:
Steinfield and Kaiden vs Home Secretary (2018), same sex couples have choice between civil partnership and marriage, different sex couples did not have the same choice which was ruled incompatible with the ECHR, law changed to permit same choice
Law Lords:
use to sit in the HoL
the Law Lords in the HoL was the site of the highest court in the country until 2009 (fusion of powers)
creation of a separate court aims to protect separation of powers & independence of the judiciary (judges should be wholly independent of those that make laws and those who are bound by and execute them)
The Constitutional Reform Act (2005):
creation of a Supreme Court was a significant part of Tony Blair and New Labour gov 1997-2010 aims to modernise the constitution; most modern democracies operate around an idea of separation of powers
due to UK unmodified & evolutionary constitution, the separation of powers did not exist, Law Lords sat in the legislative
seperation of powers is a framework of political power being distributed almost the 3 branches of government, independently & interdependently
UK has a fusion of powers, the CRA (2005) has provided clearer serperation for the judiciary
the Lord Chancellor used to sit in all 3 branches of government
Justices:
members of the Supreme Court are known as justices
12 positions (currently 10 following retirements)
head of the SC is known as the "President of the Supreme Court"
selected from experienced judges from across the country
appointed via the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) - independent panel of other lawyers and professionals, not by politicians - keeps judiciary non-political & neutral
Criticisms of Law Lords sitting in HoL:
1) inaccessible to the public
2) did not protect the neutrality & independence of senior judges
justice cannot be a member of the HoL or be members of any political party
if not independent, danger that gov will exceed its power without any legal checks
Cases / roles:
one of 'great importance to the public and constitutional matters'
an appeal court, main role to interpret the law
5 justices usually preside over a case (odd so a majority can be reached, however for particularly significant cases 9 or 11 justifies may attend)
Criticism of gender and ethnic composition:
JAC is actively trying to improve the diversity of the court which has been criticised for being 'pale, male and stale'
number of BAME barristers been in decline over the past decade
few female as the pool from which recruits are drawn in is predominantly male
Interpret parliamentary law:
not all laws passed by parliament are crystal clear, they must interpret what parliament meant when writing the law
normally not much guidance from previous cases, sometimes none
Why was the issue of MPs expenses a constitutional issue?
3 MPs and a lord were accused of admitting false expenses
they argued they could not be committed in a criminal court as submitting their expenses was a parliamentary procedure & all procedures were covered by parliamentary privilege
this privilege was originally intended to protect MPs right to speak freely in the commons
constitutional issue of in what circumstances can the courts investigate what’s gone on in parliament
constitutional issue of parliamentary privilege
Supreme Court decision:
had to decide: how far parliamentary privilege extended & were the parliamentary privileges laid out in the bill of rights been abused or applicable
unanimous verdict was the appeal was dismissed - scrutinising the claims would not infringe freedom of speech or debate, the only thing it would inhibit was the making of dishonest claims
Supreme Court rulings involving the HRA:
had to decide if British soldiers were protected by the act when serving abroad (ruling went against the soldiers protection)
another case gave gay asylum seekers the right to stay in the UK
What factors impact on their ‘neutrality’?
Judges often criticised for being remote from real life, so ill-equipped for the job
emotions impacting objectivity
What kind of skills do these judges need?
background in law, being a lawyer or barrister etc
legal and personal experience
need stamina to concentrate of case
being able to express yourself and your views clearly, verbally and in writing
try not to be to emotional, detach from emotion and be rational instead; need objectivity
self-aware, notice when emotions are taking over
What was the significance of the case on bank charges?
millions of bank customers hoping to get a refund on overdraft fees, felt bank overdraft charges were wrong and wanted office of fair trading to investigate
supreme court overruled previous judgements, meaning there will be no major investigation of charges on customers who go into the red without permission
ruled that overdraft charges are part of bank package, so OFT cannot investigate, charges mean the bank is giving fair value for money
case was large with public
case was not about if bank charges fair or not, but if OFT should investigate them
Why did the Terrorism Act of 2001 cause conflict between the gov and the judiciary?
act was passed after 9/1, allowed gov to lock up foreign terrorism suspects without trail
by 2004, imprisoned 17 suspects in Belmarsh prison, none were charged
gov violating and contradicting the HRA which they passed
at the time, Law Lords existed and case taken place in HoL
prisoner’s lawyers: If act designed to lock up potential terrorists, why lock up only foreigners?
case about if threat country faced was so serious that they could depart from the HRA, and if it wasn’t then it meant gov threatening freedoms and violating its own treaty
What was the verdict of the Supreme Court judges?
(9 Law Lords sat in judgement rather than 5)
rejected government case - rule of law exists, everyone should be allowed human rights and liberty
What was the government’s response?
gov accused the judiciary of being irresponsible
gov believed terrorists amongst us, wanted control orders (form of house arrest keeping suspects confined for up to 18 hours a day)
within months, the terrorist threat became reality (attack on bus in London) and case for control orders became stronger
What did the judges have to decide on now?
were control orders restricting or depriving liberty?
how long do they have to be at home / outside for it to be not infringing on liberty of suspect?
18 hours was ruled unlawful
What was the government response now and what was the result?
gov settled on 16 hours, but moved the suspect miles away from his home in London
question of if this was so harsh that it was almost as bad as prison
when 18 hours was denied, was 16 hours then okay?
was it okay to move the individual an hour and three quarters away from family?
was control orders ruining the individuals family life?
2010, new gov found itself in court
gov lost the case again, Justices decided this control order went too far
Role of the Supreme Court in the constitution:
keeps the executive in check
parliament tells the court to apply the HRA, so until parliament says otherwise they supreme court are complying with the parliament to do so
final court of appeal, is independent of gov
those that make the law, should be answerable to the law ; rule of law (supreme court are guardians of the rule of law)
Key cases of the Supreme Court
Some of its most important cases have involved the court upholding the Human Rights Act 1998, thus frustrating the will of the gov. However, some cases are unrelated to gov and see individuals attempting to clarify whether laws are being correctly interpreted.
HM Treasury v Ahmed (2010):
the gov wished to freeze the assets of suspected terrorists
court ruled that the gov did not have the legal power to do this, as it infringed the presumption of innocence inherent in common law and the Human Rights Act
R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice (2014):
do individuals have the right to die (assisted suicide)?
court supported the gov position arguing that Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the ECHR could not be used to overturn the Suicide Act 1961 as a means of justifying assisted suicide
Al Rawi vs The Security Service (2011):
former detainees of Guantánamo Bay claimed that British security services shared responsibility for their imprisonment and ill-treatment.
Court found in favour of the detainees, arguing that it was a departure from the natural justice inherent in common law as well as the Human Rights Act
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council (2014):
In a case concerning whether the living arrangements made for mentally incapacitated persons amounted to a deprivation of liberty, the court found that they did, arguing that social services must not limit the personal freedom of the individual
The court cited Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the ECHR as the justification for this judgement
'Black Spider' memos (2015):
journalist Rob Evans wished to see letters and memos (nicknamed 'Black Spider' because of the distinctive handwriting) sent by Prince Charles to gov ministers
gov did not want to release the letters, arguing the contents were private and sensitive.
Court found in favour of Rob Evans, citing the Freedom of Information Act
Radmacher v Granatino (2010):
are prenuptial agreements binding in the UK?
court found that they were, and that the agreements between marrying couples on how assets should be distributed in the event of divorce are legally valid
Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017):
Gina Miller argued that the UK gov could not trigger Article 50 (to leave the EU) without a vote or deliberative debate in Parliament
David Davis, the secretary of state for exiting the European Union, argued that the gov's use of the royal prerogative meant Parliament need not be consulted
Supreme Court found in favour of Miller, arguing that as referendums are non-binding, the gov could not ignore the sovereignty of Parliament
Commons duly had a vote on triggering Article 50
UK Withdrawal from the EU (Scotland Bill) (2018):
the Scottish Parliament sought to reaffirm rights on agriculture and fisheries that would return to the UK from EU control following Brexit
UK gov argued that these areas were outside the remit of the Scottish Parliament and should fall under the jurisdiction of the UK Parliament
court found in favour of the UK gov, arguing that the bill went beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament