Relationships with other branches essay plans
Evaluate the influence of the SC on the executive
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
Evaluate the influence of the SC on the executive
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
