All you need to know for your exams, written in essay plans. Helped me achieve an A*. Providing useful examples in a structured manner, deepening the understanding of the course.
1. Explain and analyse three ways in which judicial independence is upheld in the
UK (2020)
P: Security of tenure which means they cannot be removed from office without due process-
protects them from being influenced by gov or external factors. E: R Miller v Sec of State for
exiting the European Union, SC upheld independence of judiciary by ruling that the PM’s
prorogation was unlawful.
P: appointment process- it is carried out by the independent Judicial Appointments
Commission (JAC) which selects candidates based on merit without any political
interference E: Lady Hale as the first female President of the UK Supreme Court in 2017. E:
Her appointment demonstrated the JAC's commitment to appointing judges on the basis of
their ability and experience, rather than any other factors
P: separation of powers ensures that the judiciary is independent from the exec and
legislature- meaning the judiciary is not subject to political pressure or interference from
other branches of the government. E: R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, the UK
judiciary showed its independence by ruling that the principle of natural justice requires that
judges should not be biassed or perceived to be biassed
2. Explain and analyse three challenges to judicial independence and neutrality in
the UK
Independence :
P: Political Interference: E: the case of Shamima Begum. Begum was a British citizen who
left the UK to join ISIS in Syria in 2015 and was subsequently stripped of her citizenship by
the UK government in 2019. Begum appealed the decision to the Special Immigration
Appeals Commission (SIAC),then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid publicly commented on the
case, stating that he would do everything in his power to prevent Begum from returning to
the UK. This was seen as an attempt to influence the outcome of the case and put pressure
on the SIAC to rule in the government's favour. The SIAC ultimately ruled in favour of the
government's decision to revoke Begum's citizenship, but the case raised concerns about
political interference and the independence of the judiciary.
P: Economic Pressures: The government's budget decisions can affect the resources
available to the courts and other legal institutions, which in turn can impact the quality and
timeliness of justice.E: For example, in recent years, there have been concerns about the
impact of budget cuts on the courts and the ability of the justice system to function
effectively. In 2018, the Lord Chief Justice warned that the justice system was "creaking"
under the strain of funding cuts, with courts struggling to cope with the increasing number of
cases and delays in justice becoming more common. E: These economic pressures can
threaten judicial independence by limiting the resources available to judges, which can in
turn affect the quality and timeliness of justice. Judges may feel pressured to make decisions
that are influenced by economic factors, rather than based solely on the law and the facts of
the case.
,P: Public Criticism: E: Supreme Court ruling on the prorogation of Parliament in 2019.
Following the ruling, some politicians and members of the public criticised the decision and
the judges who made it, with some even calling for their resignations. E: This public criticism
was seen as an attack on the independence of the judiciary and raised concerns about the
potential impact on future cases.
Neutrality :
P: ideology E: R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister, which dealt with the
legality of Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue (suspend) Parliament in
2019. media accused the judges of being biassed against the government or of having a
political agenda. For example, the Daily Mail newspaper published a front-page headline that
read "Enemies of the people" with photographs of the judges who had made the ruling. E:
This criticism undermined the principle of judicial neutrality by suggesting that the judges
were influenced by their political beliefs or agenda rather than simply interpreting and
applying the law impartially
P: Prejudice and discrimination E: R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256.
In this case, the defendant was convicted of dangerous driving and appealed the decision on
the grounds that he had not been given a fair trial. The appeal court found that the trial had
been conducted improperly as the magistrates had a personal bias against the defendant.E:
This case demonstrates how personal prejudices can undermine the principle of judicial
neutrality, as the magistrates in this case allowed their personal feelings about the defendant
to influence their decision-making.
P: public pressure E: the case of Sally Challen, who was convicted of murder for killing her
abusive husband in 2011. In 2019, her conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal on
the grounds of new evidence regarding her mental state at the time of the killing. However,
some critics of the decision argued that it was a result of public pressure and a campaign to
free Challen, rather than purely legal considerations.E:This case highlights the potential for
public pressure to influence judicial decisions and undermine judicial neutrality, as judges
may feel pressure to appease public opinion or make decisions that are popular rather than
purely based on the law and evidence presented.
3. Explain and analyse three ways in which the judiciary could be argued as to
have become politicised in the UK.
P:Appointment process: E: the controversy surrounding the appointment of Lady Hale as the
first female president of the Supreme Court in 2017.E:some argued that the government had
bypassed traditional appointment procedures and chosen Lady Hale because of her
outspoken views on issues such as Brexit and human rights. Others pointed out that Lady
Hale's appointment was part of a wider trend towards increasing diversity and inclusivity
within the judiciary, which had been driven by political pressure and public opinion rather
than purely merit-based considerations A: highlighted the extent to which political
considerations can influence the selection of judges, even at the highest levels of the
judiciary.
P: Judicial activism: Some argue that judges have become more politically active in recent
years, taking on a more prominent role in shaping public policy. E: This can be seen in
cases such as the Brexit legal challenge, where the Supreme Court ruled that the
government could not trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval. E: Critics argue that
this was an example of judicial overreach, with judges encroaching on the powers of the
executive and the legislature
, P: Public perception: The public perception of the judiciary can also be a factor in its
politicisation E:Prime Minister Boris Johnson had acted lawfully when he advised the Queen
to prorogue (suspend) Parliament in order to limit the amount of time MPs had to debate
Brexit. The court ruled that Johnson's advice was unlawful, with some members of the public
accusing the judges of being politically motivated and seeking to overturn the result of the
Brexit referendum.
4. Explain and analyse three ways that the Supreme Court can impact on politics
in the UK.
P: Interpretation of the law: E: in the 2017 Miller case, the Supreme Court ruled that the
government could not trigger Article 50 to leave the European Union without parliamentary
approval. This decision had a significant impact on the Brexit process and the balance of
power between the government and Parliament. E: The Supreme Court is the final court of
appeal in the UK and is responsible for interpreting the law. Its decisions can have far-
reaching consequences for the government, Parliament, and the wider public.
P: Judicial review: E:For example, in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister
Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue (suspend) Parliament was unlawful, as it had the effect
of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions
without reasonable justification. E: power to review decisions made by government bodies,
including ministers, to ensure they are acting within the law. This means that the Court can
strike down policies or actions that it deems to be unlawful or unconstitutional
P: Setting legal precedent E: 2018 case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company, the Supreme
Court ruled that a bakery did not discriminate against a customer by refusing to make a cake
with a message in support of same-sex marriage. This ruling set a precedent for future
cases involving discrimination and freedom of expression.E: The decisions made by the
Supreme Court can set legal precedents that guide future court rulings and the development
of the law. This means that the Court has the power to shape the legal landscape of the UK
and influence the direction of future policy.
5. Explain and analyse three ways in which the Supreme Court has impacted on
the policy process in the UK.
P: Challenging Government Actions: E: The Supreme Court has the power to interpret and
challenge the actions of government officials and departments. For example, in 2017, the
Supreme Court ruled that the UK government could not trigger Article 50, the process for
leaving the European Union, without first seeking approval from Parliament. E: This ruling
had a significant impact on the government's Brexit strategy and led to further debate and
scrutiny of the policy
P: Setting Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court's decisions can set legal precedent and
have a significant impact on future policy decisions. E: For example, in 2013, the Supreme
Court ruled that the government's Workfare scheme, which required jobseekers to work
unpaid or lose their benefits, was illegal. E:This ruling had significant implications for the
government's welfare policy and sparked debate over the treatment of jobseekers in the UK
P:Protecting Individual Rights: The Supreme Court has a role in protecting individual rights
and freedoms. E:For example, in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the Northern Ireland
abortion ban was incompatible with human rights legislation. E:This ruling had a significant
impact on the policy process, leading to a change in the law and further debate over the
issue of reproductive rights in the UK
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller shumailabhatti. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.96. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
