Relations between branches
The impact of the Supreme Court on legislative and policy-making
processes
The role and composition of the Supreme Court
Due to the rule of law, the government is no more above the law than any
individual citizen. Therefore, the UK as a liberal democracy, requires a
clear and unequivocal separation of power between the executive and the
judiciary. This is vital so that UK citizens can be confident that their civil
liberties are being protected.
The judiciary represents the courts and judges, who dispense justice
throughout the UK. Lower courts such as crown courts and magistrates’
courts resolve cases. The judgements that are reached in more senior
courts such as the Supreme Court, are especially important because they
set legal precedents that can be referred to in subsequent cases. This is a
key function of the more senior courts. Although Parliament enacts
legislation, the meaning and relevance of those laws have to be worked
out by judges. This is because, in a particular case, it may not be certain
how an Act of Parliament should be interpreted. There may not even be a
relevant Act of Parliament to refer to. The way in which senior judges
interpret Acts of Parliament and resolve cases thus creates a legal
precedent, known as case-law or judge-made law, which judges are
expected to follow in subsequent cases. This provides the basis for British
common law, in which the decisions of senior judges in previous cases
achieve the force of precedence.
As the final court of appeal in the UK, the judgement reached by the UK
Supreme Court are of profound importance. Important cases, in which the
meaning of the law is uncertain, are judged by the Supreme Court and the
decisions that it reaches must be followed in future cases.
The UK Supreme Court is a relatively new court. The higher court of
appeal in the UK had been the House of Lords, where the 12 Law Lords
delivered judgements in the Appellate Committee. However, the fact that
the most senior judges in the UK sat in the House of Lords breached the
principle of the ‘separation of powers’. Therefore, as part of Blair
government’s commitment to modernising the British constitution, the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was passed. This removed the Law Lords
from the House of Lords and in its place established the Supreme Court.
- The 12 most senior judges in the UK now sit in the Supreme Court
and are called Justices of the Supreme Court. The head of Supreme
Court is known as its president.
, - The work of the Supreme Court is more open to public scrutiny than
had been the case with the Appellate Committee.
- The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court reached across the UK, and it
is the highest court of appeal for all civil cases. It is also the final
court of appeal for all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland. In Scotland, the High Court of Judiciary, in most cases, fulfil
this role.
- The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal when there is a
judicial review of how the government has acted.
- The Supreme Court also has the authority to determine whether an
issue ought to be under jurisdiction of the British government or a
devolved body.
- The membership of the Supreme Court is determined by a five-
member selection commission made up of the most senior judges in
the UK. Their nominations are then passed for approval to the
justice secretary, who has one opportunity to reject a nomination.
Once agreed, the PM asks the monarch to make the appointment.
The rule of law depends on judges not being influenced by the
government. Instead, the decisions that they reach should be entirely
based on the principles of justice. Judges are also expected to be neutral,
which means that their judgements should never be influenced by any
social or political prejudice.
In what ways can the Supreme Court claim to be independent and
neutral?
Opened in 2009, the Supreme Court directly faces Parliament on
Westminster Square. Judges in the UK are not permitted to be a members
of a political party. A barrister or solicitor may be a member of a political
party and may pursue a political career but once appointed, a judge must
abandon any political ambitions and associations. Judges’ salaries are not
determined by Parliament. Instead, the government follows the
recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body and payment is
made directly from the Consolidated Fund. This mechanism ensures that
no government could seek to influence the judiciary through financial
incentives. Since the Act of Settlement in 1701, which established the
Protestant succession to the Crown, a senior judge can be removed only
by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. This means that
they have, in effect, security of tenure and cannot be removed from office
by the government.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 further promoted the independence of
the senior judiciary by removing the Law Lords from the Appellate
Committee of the HoL and establishing the Supreme Court as a separate
, institution from the legislature. The Act was also designed to make
appointments to the judiciary more transparent. Previously, the Lord
Chancelor had advised the PM through ‘secret soundings’ of senior judges.
In it place a new Judicial Appointments Commission was established,
which selects judges on their merit and good character, as well as
considering the importance of encouraging diversity within the judiciary. If
candidates for the Supreme Court are deemed to be of equal merit, then
the selection committee may ‘prefer one candidate over the other
purpose of increasing diversity within the group of persons who are judges
in the court’.
The influence that the president has over nominations to the US Supreme
Court makes it a more politically partisan body than the UK Supreme
Court.
Since court cases are generally open to the public and judgements are in
the public domain, any prejudice or bias shown by a judge would be
quickly publicised in the media. Unlike other UK courts, the full
proceedings of the Supreme Court can be photographed and are live
streamed, so the public is fully informed of how it makes its judgement.
When a case is being heard, it is said to be ‘sub judice’. This means that
Parliament cannot express an opinion as this would breach the separation
of powers and undermine judicial independence. If a member of the
legislature or executive did express an opinion, this would be contempt of
court.
Judicial independence – a central principle of the rule of law is that judges
must be independent of control or persuasion by the executive or the
legislative. Judges can only fairly administer justice if they are separate
from the other branches of government and so free to act without
government pressure.
Criticisms of the independence and neutrality of the Supreme
Court
That the members of the Supreme Court are generally from such an elite
background has led to claims that they tend to favour the establishment.
Critics of the Supreme Court’s ability to provide justice therefore argue
that its membership is so privileged that the decisions it makes are
unlikely to reflect how the law impacts on modern society. Most Justices of
the Supreme Court from maintaining judicial neutrality. Men also dominate
the Supreme Court. In 2022, Lady Rose was the only female judge on the
Supreme Court.
Judicial neutrality – the rule of law requires the elimination of political bias.
The judgements that judges reach must never be influenced by any
The impact of the Supreme Court on legislative and policy-making
processes
The role and composition of the Supreme Court
Due to the rule of law, the government is no more above the law than any
individual citizen. Therefore, the UK as a liberal democracy, requires a
clear and unequivocal separation of power between the executive and the
judiciary. This is vital so that UK citizens can be confident that their civil
liberties are being protected.
The judiciary represents the courts and judges, who dispense justice
throughout the UK. Lower courts such as crown courts and magistrates’
courts resolve cases. The judgements that are reached in more senior
courts such as the Supreme Court, are especially important because they
set legal precedents that can be referred to in subsequent cases. This is a
key function of the more senior courts. Although Parliament enacts
legislation, the meaning and relevance of those laws have to be worked
out by judges. This is because, in a particular case, it may not be certain
how an Act of Parliament should be interpreted. There may not even be a
relevant Act of Parliament to refer to. The way in which senior judges
interpret Acts of Parliament and resolve cases thus creates a legal
precedent, known as case-law or judge-made law, which judges are
expected to follow in subsequent cases. This provides the basis for British
common law, in which the decisions of senior judges in previous cases
achieve the force of precedence.
As the final court of appeal in the UK, the judgement reached by the UK
Supreme Court are of profound importance. Important cases, in which the
meaning of the law is uncertain, are judged by the Supreme Court and the
decisions that it reaches must be followed in future cases.
The UK Supreme Court is a relatively new court. The higher court of
appeal in the UK had been the House of Lords, where the 12 Law Lords
delivered judgements in the Appellate Committee. However, the fact that
the most senior judges in the UK sat in the House of Lords breached the
principle of the ‘separation of powers’. Therefore, as part of Blair
government’s commitment to modernising the British constitution, the
Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was passed. This removed the Law Lords
from the House of Lords and in its place established the Supreme Court.
- The 12 most senior judges in the UK now sit in the Supreme Court
and are called Justices of the Supreme Court. The head of Supreme
Court is known as its president.
, - The work of the Supreme Court is more open to public scrutiny than
had been the case with the Appellate Committee.
- The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court reached across the UK, and it
is the highest court of appeal for all civil cases. It is also the final
court of appeal for all criminal cases in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland. In Scotland, the High Court of Judiciary, in most cases, fulfil
this role.
- The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal when there is a
judicial review of how the government has acted.
- The Supreme Court also has the authority to determine whether an
issue ought to be under jurisdiction of the British government or a
devolved body.
- The membership of the Supreme Court is determined by a five-
member selection commission made up of the most senior judges in
the UK. Their nominations are then passed for approval to the
justice secretary, who has one opportunity to reject a nomination.
Once agreed, the PM asks the monarch to make the appointment.
The rule of law depends on judges not being influenced by the
government. Instead, the decisions that they reach should be entirely
based on the principles of justice. Judges are also expected to be neutral,
which means that their judgements should never be influenced by any
social or political prejudice.
In what ways can the Supreme Court claim to be independent and
neutral?
Opened in 2009, the Supreme Court directly faces Parliament on
Westminster Square. Judges in the UK are not permitted to be a members
of a political party. A barrister or solicitor may be a member of a political
party and may pursue a political career but once appointed, a judge must
abandon any political ambitions and associations. Judges’ salaries are not
determined by Parliament. Instead, the government follows the
recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body and payment is
made directly from the Consolidated Fund. This mechanism ensures that
no government could seek to influence the judiciary through financial
incentives. Since the Act of Settlement in 1701, which established the
Protestant succession to the Crown, a senior judge can be removed only
by a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. This means that
they have, in effect, security of tenure and cannot be removed from office
by the government.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 further promoted the independence of
the senior judiciary by removing the Law Lords from the Appellate
Committee of the HoL and establishing the Supreme Court as a separate
, institution from the legislature. The Act was also designed to make
appointments to the judiciary more transparent. Previously, the Lord
Chancelor had advised the PM through ‘secret soundings’ of senior judges.
In it place a new Judicial Appointments Commission was established,
which selects judges on their merit and good character, as well as
considering the importance of encouraging diversity within the judiciary. If
candidates for the Supreme Court are deemed to be of equal merit, then
the selection committee may ‘prefer one candidate over the other
purpose of increasing diversity within the group of persons who are judges
in the court’.
The influence that the president has over nominations to the US Supreme
Court makes it a more politically partisan body than the UK Supreme
Court.
Since court cases are generally open to the public and judgements are in
the public domain, any prejudice or bias shown by a judge would be
quickly publicised in the media. Unlike other UK courts, the full
proceedings of the Supreme Court can be photographed and are live
streamed, so the public is fully informed of how it makes its judgement.
When a case is being heard, it is said to be ‘sub judice’. This means that
Parliament cannot express an opinion as this would breach the separation
of powers and undermine judicial independence. If a member of the
legislature or executive did express an opinion, this would be contempt of
court.
Judicial independence – a central principle of the rule of law is that judges
must be independent of control or persuasion by the executive or the
legislative. Judges can only fairly administer justice if they are separate
from the other branches of government and so free to act without
government pressure.
Criticisms of the independence and neutrality of the Supreme
Court
That the members of the Supreme Court are generally from such an elite
background has led to claims that they tend to favour the establishment.
Critics of the Supreme Court’s ability to provide justice therefore argue
that its membership is so privileged that the decisions it makes are
unlikely to reflect how the law impacts on modern society. Most Justices of
the Supreme Court from maintaining judicial neutrality. Men also dominate
the Supreme Court. In 2022, Lady Rose was the only female judge on the
Supreme Court.
Judicial neutrality – the rule of law requires the elimination of political bias.
The judgements that judges reach must never be influenced by any
