3 detailed 30-marker essay plans with matched arguments including examples
Evaluate the influence of the SC on the executive
Evaluate the extent to which leaving the EU has impacted parliamentary sovereignty
Evaluate the view that parliament is a sovereign entity
Has influence over the executive Doesn’t have influence over the executive
Upholds the law created by executive Can only uphold law, not create law
- can set judicial precedent and their themselves
decisions carry more weight in developing - parliamentary sovereignty means that sc
the meaning of law can’t overturn any primary leg made by
- e.g. Gina Miller 2017- executive could not parliament
trigger leaving EU and start withdrawal - e.g. Belmarsh 2004 contested terrorism
process without first giving parliament a act 2001- govt detained foreign nationals
free vote on the issue on terrorism charge without trial
- powerful challenged govts prorogation - sc are reactive not proactive and so
of Parliament which govt has to obey couldn’t act on it and it was not brought to
them by Liberty
Can question public body of their use of Parliament could legislate to give the body
authority legal powers it didn’t have before
- allows them to put political pressure onto - e.g. Belmarsh care- Blair govt introduced
govt to make them amend it leg to keep detained foreign nationals
- e.g. 2016- ruled that justice secretary under surveillance despite scrutiny and
acted above authority when he amended controversy
Legal aid act to restrict civil legal aid to
people who lived abroad for 12 months
should’ve been discussed in parliament
- prevents tyranny
Can declare incompatibility of laws Court simply protects rights, doesn’t
- HRA allows judges to declare laws to be determine range and scope of rights
incompatible when new bills don’t comply - e.g. justice and security act 2013 allowed
with it ‘closed material proceedings’ or secret
- e.g. R v Chief Constable of Greater courts into the justice system, something
Manchester 2013 = police act 1997 the SC is powerless to stop
interfering with tight to respect for private
life more than in necessary to protect
civilians violation of Article 8
- e.g. also, can declare incompatibility when
with ECHR when in EU Belmarsh = Law
Lords declared that holding suspects was
discriminatory against ECHR as British
terrorist weren’t treated the same
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 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 TrishaM. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.48. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
