The UK Supreme Court

Supreme Court Back in 2003 the Blair government announced that it intended to make fundamental changes to the Judiciary. This had a lot to do with the relative lack of separation of powers in the UK. A separate court to house the judges who sat in the House of Lords seemed an important step to proving the independence of the judiciary.

Why is judicial independence so important. It is vital that judges are free from any kind of pressure or influence from outside sources such as politicians or pressure groups. They have to act according to the law and not the wishes of groups outside the judiciary. This is how we can be sure that we receive a fair trial (Art 6) Judicial Appointments Committee set up- recommend judges to the Lord Chancellor.

Constitutional Reform Act 2005 After 2years of arguing the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was passed through parliament. Part 3 of this Act provided for the establishment of a Supreme Court, which would end the judicial activities of the House of Lords. Although the current Law Lords would be the first Supreme Court judges, future judges would be chosen more independently than these had in the past.

Arguments for a Supreme Court Confusion between two branches of government had gone on for too long. The mere fact that it would be housed in a separate building would convince people that the UK courts were independent. Avoiding suspicion and confusion. Constitutional Reform Act 2005 reduced the influence of the Lord Chancellor and changed the way judges are appointed to make them more independent.

Arguments against The enormous cost of moving building and refurbishment (final bill come to over 70million). The fact that such a court might actually assume new powers, and challenge the legal sovereignty of parliament. The fact that a new supreme court with few extra powers might seem to other nations to be a poor version of the supreme court of, foe example the USA (this has powers to strike down laws and judgements).