Relations Between Branches: Summary
Supreme court – set up under the constitutional reform act of 2005, established in 2009,
more separation
Final court of appeal, 12 supreme court justices, 1 president (Baron Reed as of 2020)
1. Judicial Independence: separation of powers, appointed by an independent panel
without political interference, remain until retirement, only can be removed if they have
broken the law and both houses agree, no political interference on salaries. But judges
have been criticised by politicians (Supreme court ruling on article 50 in 2017)
2. Judicial Neutrality: apolitical, make judgement on the law alone, overwhelmingly
white old men though, not representative.
Principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the supreme court should not be able to
override decisions made by parliament – DECLARATION OF INCOMPATIBILITY
HRA – conflicts with this act = declaration of incompatibility
2001: Anti-terrorism legislation contravened the HRA – discriminated against people on
the basis of nationality or immigration status.
The HRA has increased judicial activism through judicial review
Supreme court & the executive: Miller vs Secretary of State for Exiting the EU 2017 – Gina
Miller took the govt to the high court, the government appealed to the supreme court but they
held up the high court decision. Thereasa May could not just used royal prerogative to trigger
Article 50.
Newspapers said the court was being biased in favour of remain – judicial neutrality?
Example of the court not allowing the executive to act ULTRA VIRES – go beyond its
legal or constitutional powers.
Judicial review: when the court conducts a review to see if govt ministers/public officials are
acting legally or are ultra vires – usually pressure groups that bring these cases
2013 anti-HS2 group brought judicial review against the govt handling. The govt won 9
out of 10 cases, but was forced to revisit its plans for compensation for residents, as
the judicial review concluded that these were unlawful.
Suggestion that judicial review is politicising the judiciary. Coalition govt 2015 did
reform the system to reduce the number of review cases.
Parliament and the executive – the balance of power
PARLIAMENT HOLDS THE EXECUTIVE TO ACCOUNT: MPs can defeat the govt in parliament by
forcing the govt to make changes (‘meaningful votes’ on exiting the EU in 2018/19), MPs are
able to ask questions to the PM and ministers in the chamber sometimes leading to
admissions of error or policy changes, select committees are able to scrutinise (forensic and
sustained questioning), parliament able to hold a motion of no confidence.
THE EXECUTIVE DOMINIATES PARLIAMENT: majority and use of whips to force through
legislation, govt has a large payroll vote of MPs bound by collective responsibility, dependent
on the PM on promotions, even though the lords is more independent the govt can use the
parliament act and Salisbury convention to override them, the govt has many resources and
the civil service.
Supreme court – set up under the constitutional reform act of 2005, established in 2009,
more separation
Final court of appeal, 12 supreme court justices, 1 president (Baron Reed as of 2020)
1. Judicial Independence: separation of powers, appointed by an independent panel
without political interference, remain until retirement, only can be removed if they have
broken the law and both houses agree, no political interference on salaries. But judges
have been criticised by politicians (Supreme court ruling on article 50 in 2017)
2. Judicial Neutrality: apolitical, make judgement on the law alone, overwhelmingly
white old men though, not representative.
Principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the supreme court should not be able to
override decisions made by parliament – DECLARATION OF INCOMPATIBILITY
HRA – conflicts with this act = declaration of incompatibility
2001: Anti-terrorism legislation contravened the HRA – discriminated against people on
the basis of nationality or immigration status.
The HRA has increased judicial activism through judicial review
Supreme court & the executive: Miller vs Secretary of State for Exiting the EU 2017 – Gina
Miller took the govt to the high court, the government appealed to the supreme court but they
held up the high court decision. Thereasa May could not just used royal prerogative to trigger
Article 50.
Newspapers said the court was being biased in favour of remain – judicial neutrality?
Example of the court not allowing the executive to act ULTRA VIRES – go beyond its
legal or constitutional powers.
Judicial review: when the court conducts a review to see if govt ministers/public officials are
acting legally or are ultra vires – usually pressure groups that bring these cases
2013 anti-HS2 group brought judicial review against the govt handling. The govt won 9
out of 10 cases, but was forced to revisit its plans for compensation for residents, as
the judicial review concluded that these were unlawful.
Suggestion that judicial review is politicising the judiciary. Coalition govt 2015 did
reform the system to reduce the number of review cases.
Parliament and the executive – the balance of power
PARLIAMENT HOLDS THE EXECUTIVE TO ACCOUNT: MPs can defeat the govt in parliament by
forcing the govt to make changes (‘meaningful votes’ on exiting the EU in 2018/19), MPs are
able to ask questions to the PM and ministers in the chamber sometimes leading to
admissions of error or policy changes, select committees are able to scrutinise (forensic and
sustained questioning), parliament able to hold a motion of no confidence.
THE EXECUTIVE DOMINIATES PARLIAMENT: majority and use of whips to force through
legislation, govt has a large payroll vote of MPs bound by collective responsibility, dependent
on the PM on promotions, even though the lords is more independent the govt can use the
parliament act and Salisbury convention to override them, the govt has many resources and
the civil service.
