Evaluate the extent to which the Supreme Court can control government power
The function of the Supreme Court includes ensuring law is being followed effectively
and limiting the governments power. The UK Supreme Court controls governmental
power through Judaical review, declarations of incompatibility and through EU laws. On
the other hand, it can be argued that this is ineffective, as they are limited in their ability
to hold the executive to account, the human rights act is no longer entrenched into the
EU law, and it has not successfully limited the extent of governmental power. It is clear
that this debate holds some key points, however it is clear that the Supreme Court does
not control government power effectively.
One function of the Supreme Court controlling government power is through the use of
judicial review, this is the process of citizens seeking the opportunity to seek a judiciaral
review through court when they feel mistreated by a public body. It achieves the
democratic objective of ensuring government does not overstep its powers, therefore
limiting government power. An example of this being applied is the case of ‘acting ultra
vires’ on the application of miller v Boris Johnson, conservative PM in 2019. Johnson
announced his intentions to suspend parliament in September 2019 before issuing a
new Queens speech to set out his government agenda, however opponents believed
this was an attempt to ignore parliament by suspending it during the lead up to the
deadline for leaving the European Union. Miller brought the argument that Johnson had
exceeded his governmental powers and acted illegally, to which their Supreme Court
agreed. This example proves that the Supreme Court is capable in limiting governmental
power, however, this is not always effective, due to the fact that the Supreme Court
cannot initiate a case itself, and the applicant must provide them their case, meaning
some issues may not be considered. Another reasoning for their ineffective limiting of
government power is the fact that government can amend a courts ruling, for example;
in 2010 the court ruled that the government did not have the power to freeze the bank
assets of suspected terrorists, later that year the ‘terrorist asset-freezing etc’ act was
passed ultimately allowing government to ignore the court. The Supreme Court had no
power over this change as parliament is sovereign, ultimately leaving the courts ruling
useless, and shrinking the extent to which they can control government power. Overall,
although powerful, the Supreme Court lacks the sovereignty of parliament and is unable
to overrule their decisions, meaning that the Supreme Court cannot control government
power effectively.
In terms of declaration of incompatibility, the 1998 human rights act allows judges to
declare legislation as incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights,
The function of the Supreme Court includes ensuring law is being followed effectively
and limiting the governments power. The UK Supreme Court controls governmental
power through Judaical review, declarations of incompatibility and through EU laws. On
the other hand, it can be argued that this is ineffective, as they are limited in their ability
to hold the executive to account, the human rights act is no longer entrenched into the
EU law, and it has not successfully limited the extent of governmental power. It is clear
that this debate holds some key points, however it is clear that the Supreme Court does
not control government power effectively.
One function of the Supreme Court controlling government power is through the use of
judicial review, this is the process of citizens seeking the opportunity to seek a judiciaral
review through court when they feel mistreated by a public body. It achieves the
democratic objective of ensuring government does not overstep its powers, therefore
limiting government power. An example of this being applied is the case of ‘acting ultra
vires’ on the application of miller v Boris Johnson, conservative PM in 2019. Johnson
announced his intentions to suspend parliament in September 2019 before issuing a
new Queens speech to set out his government agenda, however opponents believed
this was an attempt to ignore parliament by suspending it during the lead up to the
deadline for leaving the European Union. Miller brought the argument that Johnson had
exceeded his governmental powers and acted illegally, to which their Supreme Court
agreed. This example proves that the Supreme Court is capable in limiting governmental
power, however, this is not always effective, due to the fact that the Supreme Court
cannot initiate a case itself, and the applicant must provide them their case, meaning
some issues may not be considered. Another reasoning for their ineffective limiting of
government power is the fact that government can amend a courts ruling, for example;
in 2010 the court ruled that the government did not have the power to freeze the bank
assets of suspected terrorists, later that year the ‘terrorist asset-freezing etc’ act was
passed ultimately allowing government to ignore the court. The Supreme Court had no
power over this change as parliament is sovereign, ultimately leaving the courts ruling
useless, and shrinking the extent to which they can control government power. Overall,
although powerful, the Supreme Court lacks the sovereignty of parliament and is unable
to overrule their decisions, meaning that the Supreme Court cannot control government
power effectively.
In terms of declaration of incompatibility, the 1998 human rights act allows judges to
declare legislation as incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights,
