1)security of tenure and protected salaries....
2)growing seperation of powers & long standing principle of sub judice....
3)creation of the JAC under the cra 2005...
judges are free from government interference
judges are neutral and not swayed by personal opinion or popular pressure
1)Anonymity - judges operate out of the public eye and rarely speak out publicly on issues of the law
2)Political activity - judges do not campaign on behalf political parties or pressure groups....
3)High level training - part of the profession is that it is highly trained and regulated by the law society.
- reduced the power of the lord chancellor placing most senior judicial appointments into the hands of new judicial appointments commission
- enhanced the seperation of powers - senior judiciary that was more representative of the broader population
- creation of the supreme court
1) doesnt 'look like' the UK in terms of age profile, gender and ethnicity...
2)judiciary is elitist in terms of educational background and social class of senior judges....
3)Politicised - hra 1998 drew judges into the political fray to rule on the merit of an individual piece of statute as opposed to its application......
2014 - court dismissed an appeal by campaigners against the construction of the hs2 high speed rail link from london to birmingham....
UKSC - prorogation ruling 2019 september 24
- argued use of royal prerogative must respect conventions of parl sov and democratic accountability......
- under the HRA 1998, sc has power to decide whether if a public body or particular law is in breach of the ECHR and issue a declaration of incompatibility....
European Court of Justice - sc of eu, interprets eu law
European Convention of Human Rights 1950 - international agreement on political freedoms and human rights guaranteeing them for all citizens - upheld by the ECtHR
Passed into british law by parliament bringing ECHR into law
- Brexit affect only the uksc and eu law, not uksc and echr as uk remains signatory to echr
- sc no longer tasked wiht having to enforce eu law under uk law
- the removal of a court superior to the sc in some aspects of the law, could serve to enhance the sc status/authority.
Tigere V Secretary of state for Business
- denied a student loan for uni degree because she could not apply for an 'indefinite leave to remain' in UK until 2018
- 2015 UKSC accepted Tigere's appeal on the grounds of negative impact on her rights under article 2 of echr (right to education) and article 14.
- Under hra 1998, government bills must include statement that says in ministers pov that the bill is either compatible or incompatible with HRA but chooses to proceed with bill
- Rare ocassians, uk governemnt can choose to ignore rulins from ECtHR - 2005, court rulked that a blanket ban on prisoners voting was incompatible w echr, but parliament didnt change the law
Reilly V Secretary of state for work and pensions 2016
- argued dwp infringed protections against slavery by article 4 echr by requring her work for private company to receive her benefit payments
- sc concluded that although dwp not 'established slavery' in violation of ECtHR, still unlawful cuz department had acted ultra vires
1)Ultra vires - government/public bodies deemed by courts to have exceeded their powers e.g. reilly v sec of state for dwp
2)UK used echr to rule against govt action e.g. tigere vs sec of state for business.... - completion of brexit = removed uk legal obligation to follow eu law = benefit for uk sc
3)Growing institution of judiciary = indirect influence on government - knowledge that judges are increasingly active and possesed of power to block/impose...
1)senior judges from the uksc have become more active in recent years....
2)creation of UKSC under CRA 2005 has seen uk's most senior judges cast in a more political light....