Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has too much influence over the …
Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court has too much influence over the
executive.
Judicial Review
FOR: The court's ability of perform judicial review and thus interpret the behaviour of the public body means they exercise power over the executive in this sense
For example, Johnson's prorogation case in 2019. The court had to ask themselves, was this decision rational? Did it follow correct legal procedure? Did it clash with other statues?
The court eventually ruled that Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. As a result of 'rule of law,' the executive must be held to the same legal standards as anybody else.
CAVEAT: The Supreme court's ability to perform judicial review is only a component of a system of checks and balances + the judiciary itself is subject to limitations. Indeed, judicial review is a challenge to the way in which a decision was made, not whether it was the wrong or right one.
Overall however, the supreme court do influence the executive in this sense
Setting precedent
The court's strongest influence is in setting precedent, whereby cases influence parliamentary bills
For example, the R V R case in 1992, set a precedent around marital rape, whereby a man tried to defend himself against rape charges on the grounds that the victim was his wife
The law lords ruled him a rapist nonetheless, overturning the common law or assumption that marriage created an irrecoverable consent
the husband having automatic consent was an "anachronistic and offensive legal fiction" said the courts
CAVEAT: The court does not have any ability to genuinely implement or force parliamentary bills, so the influence of the courts in such a sense is greatly restricted. For example, after the supreme court ruling of 2025 regarding the definition of sex (aligning sex with that assigned at birth), Parliament didn't take any legislative action
Overall, the supreme court does influence the executive greatly in their setting of precedent
Independence + neutrality
AGAINST: The court's independence and neutrality from the government means that they genuinely cannot have much influence over the executive at all
The constitutional act of 2005 ensured...
the removal of the judicial responsibility of the Lord Chancellor, which furthered a separation of powers (as he held a place in parliament)
the creation of the supreme court as a SEPARATE body (the building was even built completely separately from the entirety of Westminster)
Judges are not allowed to have any political affiliation
The Court is expected to remain independent and neutral from the executive, so they genuinely cannot influence the executive in this way.
CAVEAT: The lord justice still has some power over the appointment of judges and therefore has some influence over the executive
However, it's very unlikely that the Lord Justice would reject a nomination from the selection committee and thus independence and neutrality is restored in this way - lessening the influence of the supreme court over the executive
Overall, the supreme court does not have influence over the executive in this sense, as obligations of independence and neutrality ensure that