Evaluate the extent to which the UK judiciary is neutral and independent.
Opinion is sharply divided as to whether the judiciary is independent and neutral. On one
hand, the Judiciary is seen as independent and neutral to a great extent as judges are highly
experienced and have to justify their decisions, and are not involved in any political activity.
Therefore, reducing the likelihood that judges will be influenced by internal and external
influences. Furthermore, Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and legislation such as the Human
Rights Act gives the judiciary more grounds to assert their independence. On the other hand,
judges are unelected and the government can use its power to appoint judges to influence
the judiciary and can be subject to political pressure. Overall, the Judiciary is widely
independent and neutral due to ultra views providing a check on the power of executive and
legislative to uphold the rule of law.
The Uk’s judiciary is seen as independent due to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which
allows separation of powers where the judiciary is kept separate from the other branches of
government (executive, legislative) and established the supreme court in 2009 which
replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in order to provide effective checks on
other branches. For example, 2019 Gina Miller prorogation case where the court
unanimously found that PM’s advice to the Queen to prorogue the parliament was unlawful
demonstrating independence of the judiciary to hold the executive to account. In addition to
these changes, the act also introduced reforms to strengthen the independence of the
judiciary such as the appointment of judges by Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC),
which is responsible for selecting judges based on their merit, qualifications and experience.
Hence, as they are protected by judicial independence, they are free to make rulings without
external pressures offering the security of tenure for judges to establish fixed terms of office
which protects judges from dismissal or removal. On the other hand, there is no evidence
that before the separation of power the judiciary wasn't willing to challenge the government
over human rights despite the fusion of powers. For example, the Belmarsh case (2004),
where the house of lords declared that the indefinite detention of foreign nationals in
Belmarsh prison without trial was incompatible with the ECHR as it violates the right to
liberty and the right to a free trial. The Belmarsh case was a significant win over the
executive, showing the house of lords being as able as the supreme court. However, as the
house of lords which issued the ruling isn’t a court of law but a legislative body, therefore it
wasn't legally binding to the UK. Hence, after 2005, the UK has a strong tradition of judicial
independence where judges are free from external influences and semi-entrenched
legislation gives the Judiciary more confidence to assert the independence by challenging
the government ensuring the judiciary can effectively protect rights without the pressure of
the government.
Moreover, the UK’s Judiciary is neutral and neutrality is important to uphold formal equality
and promotes the values like everyone is equal under the law, a liberal view of formal
equality. Judges are expected to offer an explanation of how decisions are rooted in law
which decreases the chances of bias, therefore decisions are published fully online.
Furthermore, decisions made are free and fair as judges do not preside over the cases
involving any personal relation, preserving their neutrality with no personal bias and political
affiliation. For example, 2019 supreme court ruled that the government's decision to award a
contract for COVID- 19 testing to a company with links to the conservative party was
unlawful demonstrating that the judiciary is willing to hold government to account and to
Opinion is sharply divided as to whether the judiciary is independent and neutral. On one
hand, the Judiciary is seen as independent and neutral to a great extent as judges are highly
experienced and have to justify their decisions, and are not involved in any political activity.
Therefore, reducing the likelihood that judges will be influenced by internal and external
influences. Furthermore, Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and legislation such as the Human
Rights Act gives the judiciary more grounds to assert their independence. On the other hand,
judges are unelected and the government can use its power to appoint judges to influence
the judiciary and can be subject to political pressure. Overall, the Judiciary is widely
independent and neutral due to ultra views providing a check on the power of executive and
legislative to uphold the rule of law.
The Uk’s judiciary is seen as independent due to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which
allows separation of powers where the judiciary is kept separate from the other branches of
government (executive, legislative) and established the supreme court in 2009 which
replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in order to provide effective checks on
other branches. For example, 2019 Gina Miller prorogation case where the court
unanimously found that PM’s advice to the Queen to prorogue the parliament was unlawful
demonstrating independence of the judiciary to hold the executive to account. In addition to
these changes, the act also introduced reforms to strengthen the independence of the
judiciary such as the appointment of judges by Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC),
which is responsible for selecting judges based on their merit, qualifications and experience.
Hence, as they are protected by judicial independence, they are free to make rulings without
external pressures offering the security of tenure for judges to establish fixed terms of office
which protects judges from dismissal or removal. On the other hand, there is no evidence
that before the separation of power the judiciary wasn't willing to challenge the government
over human rights despite the fusion of powers. For example, the Belmarsh case (2004),
where the house of lords declared that the indefinite detention of foreign nationals in
Belmarsh prison without trial was incompatible with the ECHR as it violates the right to
liberty and the right to a free trial. The Belmarsh case was a significant win over the
executive, showing the house of lords being as able as the supreme court. However, as the
house of lords which issued the ruling isn’t a court of law but a legislative body, therefore it
wasn't legally binding to the UK. Hence, after 2005, the UK has a strong tradition of judicial
independence where judges are free from external influences and semi-entrenched
legislation gives the Judiciary more confidence to assert the independence by challenging
the government ensuring the judiciary can effectively protect rights without the pressure of
the government.
Moreover, the UK’s Judiciary is neutral and neutrality is important to uphold formal equality
and promotes the values like everyone is equal under the law, a liberal view of formal
equality. Judges are expected to offer an explanation of how decisions are rooted in law
which decreases the chances of bias, therefore decisions are published fully online.
Furthermore, decisions made are free and fair as judges do not preside over the cases
involving any personal relation, preserving their neutrality with no personal bias and political
affiliation. For example, 2019 supreme court ruled that the government's decision to award a
contract for COVID- 19 testing to a company with links to the conservative party was
unlawful demonstrating that the judiciary is willing to hold government to account and to
