The Independent Judiciary in the United Kingdom
Q. Is there an independent judiciary in the United Kingdom? What
obstacles, if any, hinder this independence?
Although judges in the English Legal System are not part of the law
making process, and full time judges are not allowed to be members of
the House of Commons, they are still thought to be independent in a
number of ways, as an independent judiciary plays an important role in
protecting the liberty of an individual from abuse of power by the
executive.
There is flexibility in the law for part time judges and they are
allowed to be members of the Parliament. Judges can be members of the
House of Lords in its legislative function, and can take part in
debates on new laws. These Law Lords can now participate in
controversial political debates which they were previously not allowed
to do. An area where Law Lords participated was in government policies
on sentencing, where Lord Taylor criticized minimum sentences.
Judges play a role in law making through the doctrine of judicial
precedent. There have been cases in which judges have refused to
change past precedent saying that it is the job of the Parliament to
make amendments to law and not of the judges. An example of such a
case is C v DPP (1994) regarding the criminal responsibility of
children.
As superior judges cannot be dismissed by the Government, they are
truly independent of it and can make decisions that cannot be changed.
However, the appointment of judges is not independent from the
executive. The Lord Chancellor is a member of all three arms of the
state. The Prime Minister is responsible for the nomination of senior
judges, but the appointment of judges at all levels is usually by the
Lord Chancellor. Since 1998, the Lord Chancellor listens to all
complaints against judges. According to the statistics, there have
been 23 cases where he has either written to the judges directly or
referred them to the concerned officers. Thus the judges have become
The governor general, who assigns judges of the federal courts and advises the prime minister as well as accomplishing those duties of the prime minister. The prime minister has power to assign and fire Cabinet ministers, and hundreds of other federal government office holders. The Crown Corporation that is established by the Government of Canada.
...te Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs suggested a resigning age for all elected judges. This suggestion was focused around an apparent need to keep up fiery and element courts in opening up boulevards for 'capable legitimate professionals' to attain legal positions. It is likewise focused around developing group faith in a necessary resigning age for judges and to dodge 'the sad need' of uprooting a judge made unfit for office by declining health.
The late 1700s and early 1800s were a time full of expansion and innovation in the United States of America. The country was getting bigger, both in population and in geographic size, and the government was getting more powerful as well. This was because of the new Constitution that was put into place in 1787 that replaced the Articles of Confederation and took most of the power away from the individual states and gave it to the federal government. When the Constitution was ratified, both Brutus (believed to be Robert Yates), and Alexander Hamilton were in a debate over the potential power of the federal government, and more specifically, the power of the Supreme Court in Federalist 78 and Brutus’ eleventh and twelfth letters. Alexander Hamilton supported the proposed system and expressed his belief that the judiciary did not have too much power by any means. Brutus was more concerned that the court would simply side with the government and would therefore have too much power over the states. In 1803 one of the biggest landmark cases ever reached the Court, Marbury v. Madison. This case was not directly about the power of the court, but similar to most Supreme Court cases, it turned into a debate about something more crucial. By reading John Marshall’s opinion on the Marbury v. Madison case, it is apparent that Brutus originally had the better idea about the Supreme Court’s power due to his overwhelming wisdom and excellent foresight into what the judiciary would eventually become.
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
Judiciary.gov.uk. 2014. Judges, Tribunals and Magistrates | Introduction to the justice system | Traditions of the courts. [online] Available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/introduction-to-justice-system/court-traditions [Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].
The English legal system is complex and there are many ways in which it can be influenced, this essay will explore some of the different, more obvious ways the law can be changed and what this shows in relation to the quote above. First the essay will discuss the different ways the law can be created and changed and who enables and controls those changes, with my primary examples being the common law and legislation for the judicracy and Parliament respectively, then the essay will cover to what extent these powers enable the judicracy to change and create law in relation to Parliament and if it could be discribed as "opportunistic and piecemeal".
Sometimes it leaves red raw scars that will eventually fade into silver marks- blemishes that will never leave you. Someday the memories will be in loud colour but sometimes you might remember it in muted black and white –it doesn’t matter what shade the memories are; you will never forget.
changed in terms of its power of deciding cases. It has on the other hand
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
Exploring To Which Extent the Parliament is Supreme There are two sides to this argument, one obviously defending that Parliament is Supreme in the law making process, and has utmost authority, the other stating the constraints on Parliament and there it is not supreme. Within Britain, parliament is the supreme law making body. The idea behind this is that the people select parliament and, therefore, the people make the law. We describe this as PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNITY, That is to say that Parliament is the highest power in the land, and shall not be challenged. An example that shows parliamentary supremacy is Cheney .vs.
Prior to the 2005 reforms, the appointment of judges to England and Wales’s judiciary was fraught with secrecy and bias with a total disregard for transparency and accountability. The old ways of appointment have been described as an “old boys” network of informality creating a self-sustaining system. John Griffith argues this i...
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
... judiciary will then be able to apply the rules as parliament intended them to be applied. The sovereignty of parliament disbars the judiciary from reforming or creating law. However, the lack of parliamentary time for debate and areas of law where there is uncertainty about what was intended does provide the judiciary with the opportunity to change, develop and amend the law in the UK through the process of statutory interpretation. In addition to this judge's can refer cases to the European Court of Justice in order to have an influence on law reform in the UK.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
Judicial review seeks to enforce and uphold constitutional doctrines which govern the UK’s uncodified constitution by scrutinising administrative action. One constitutional function of judicial review is to enforce the rule of law. It can be argued, in defining the rule of law as “negative value...designed to minimised the harm to freedom and dignity which the law may cause in its pursuit of its goals” Joseph Raz characterised judicial review. The principle of which states the executive is to be ruled by the law and subject to it.