100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
30/30 Supreme Court Neutrality Plan CA$8.76   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. PEARSON (PEARSON)
  4.  
  5. Government And Politics
  6.  
  7. Paper 2: UK Government

Other

30/30 Supreme Court Neutrality Plan
 24 views  1 purchase
  • Course
  • Paper 2: UK Government
  • Institution
  • PEARSON (PEARSON)

A full 30/30 A* plan evaluating how far the Supreme Court exercises neutrality. Can work as a stand-alone essay on neutrality, or can be paired with essay plan on independence to answer a question on both. This question came up in the June 2022 exam and my plan helped my answer to achieve 30/30...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 2  pages

Document information

  • March 22, 2023
  • 2
  • 2022/2023
  • Other
  • Unknown

Subjects

  • supreme court essay plan
  • neutrality essay plan
  • uk government essay plan
  • politics essay plan
  • uk politics essay plan
  • independence neu
  • supreme court neutrality essay plan
  • how neutral is the supreme court

Written for

  • A/AS Level
  • PEARSON (PEARSON)
  • Government and Politics
  • Paper 2: UK Government
All documents for this subject (15)

Seller

avatar-seller
alexupshall

Reviews received

Content preview

Evaluate the view that the Supreme Court can no longer be described as a neutral body [30]


Introduction Define: proportionality, voter choice, Argument:
stable government (criteria for New Largely convincing – there are some
Labour Jenkins Commission on electoral drawbacks, e.g. fewer majority govts, but
reform) AMS retains the desirable features of FPTP
while mitigating its fundamental
disadvantages e.g. limited voter choice &
highly disproportional results.
Paragraph 1: Weak argument point 1: Weak argument point 2:
The diversity of the Supreme Court has Also note the SC’s lack of ethnic diversity –
also raised questions around its capacity only one not Oxbridge educated, and al
for neutrality: Radmarcher v Granatino white.
2010 centred around whether prenuptial Despite the CRA 2005 establishing a largely
agreements should be given decisive independent appointments process,
weight in divorce proceedings. Lady Hale ministers can exert some influence over
wrote a dissenting opinion to the other 8 the final appointment of justices on the
Justice, and said ‘in short there is a gender Supreme Court, undermining neutrality.
dimension to the issue which some may
think ill-suited to a decision by a court
consisting of eight men and one woman.


Strong argument point 1: Strong argument point 2:
Supreme Court judges are held The SC was established under the CRA
accountable for their rulings: they must (2005). The CRA established a more
explain in writing their formal opinion and independent appointments process: the
announce it, as Lady Hale did following the Lord Chancellor convenes an ad hoc
2019 case R (Miller) v The Prime Minister. Special Commission – previously a ‘tap on
Justices are also prohibited from joining the shoulder’. Lord Chancellor has never
political parties, used veto power. Importantly, the Lord
Chancellor does not sit on the select
Extensive legal training. Kilmuir rules. commission – tempers their power.
Senior judges held accountable for their Once judges are appointed, cannot be
rulings by explaining them in writing. removed from office – remain in their post
until retirement age of 70.
The pay and rewards of judges are Judges therefore selected on a neutral
safeguarded from political influence – they basis to avoid collusion – special
are paid out of the Consolidated Fund, commission is comprised of the President,
which is not overseen by the Commons. another UK judge, and a rep of each of the
three legal appointing bodies – diverse.


Paragraph 2: Weak argument point 1: Weak argument point 2:
Politicised. Some newspapers raised questions around Similarly, others also argued that the
the neutrality of the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court was intervening in Brexit/
ruling against the executive in the case R political matters in the 2019 prorogation
(Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the case – Johnson attempting to pass Brexit
European Union: four of the justices had deal.
professional links to the EU; five had
expressed sympathetic views towards the
EU; six had personal relationships with
people who had criticized Brexit. Only four

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

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

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 alexupshall. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for CA$8.76. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

81113 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
CA$8.76  1x  sold
  • (0)
  Add to cart