You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines judicial independence — the principle that judges should be free from political pressure and external influence when making decisions. Judicial independence is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that citizens can receive fair treatment in the courts. For the Edexcel A-Level Politics specification, this is a core concept within the study of the judiciary.
Judicial independence means that judges are free to make decisions based solely on the law and the evidence before them, without interference from the government, Parliament, political parties, the media, or any other external source.
It has two dimensions:
Key Term: Judicial independence is the constitutional principle that judges should be free from external pressure, especially from the government, when making legal decisions.
Without judicial independence, the rule of law would be undermined. If the government could control judicial outcomes, citizens would have no meaningful protection against the state.
Judicial independence matters because:
Judicial independence in the UK is protected through a combination of constitutional statutes, conventions, and institutional arrangements:
Judges cannot be dismissed by the government at will. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, senior judges hold office "during good behaviour" (quamdiu se bene gesserint) and can only be removed by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament — a procedure known as an Address to the Crown. This has never been used to remove a senior judge in England and Wales.
This means that even if a judge makes a ruling that the government dislikes, the government cannot simply sack the judge. This is a fundamental safeguard of judicial independence.
Exam Tip: Security of tenure is the most important structural guarantee of judicial independence. Without it, judges could be threatened with dismissal for making unpopular rulings.
The sub judice rule is a parliamentary convention that prevents MPs and peers from commenting on cases that are currently before the courts. The purpose of this rule is to prevent political pressure from influencing judicial outcomes.
If politicians could publicly condemn a defendant or demand a particular verdict while a case was ongoing, this could undermine the fairness of the trial and the independence of the judge.
Limitation: The sub judice rule is a convention, not a binding legal rule. It can be (and occasionally is) breached, particularly by politicians speaking in the media rather than in Parliament.
The way judges are appointed is crucial to judicial independence. Before 2005, senior judicial appointments were made by the Lord Chancellor — a Cabinet minister — raising concerns about political patronage.
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) — an independent body responsible for selecting candidates for judicial appointment in England and Wales. The JAC selects judges on the basis of merit through a transparent, competitive process.
For Supreme Court appointments, a special selection commission is convened for each vacancy, comprising members of the JAC and equivalent bodies from Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Lord Chancellor retains a limited role: they can accept the recommendation, reject it once, or ask for reconsideration once — but cannot impose their own candidate. This ensures that political influence over appointments is minimised.
This landmark Act introduced several reforms to strengthen judicial independence:
Judicial salaries are charged to the Consolidated Fund — a permanent fund that does not require annual parliamentary approval. This means the government cannot use the threat of reducing judicial pay as a means of influencing judicial decisions.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an offence to publish material that creates a "substantial risk of serious prejudice" to legal proceedings. This protects the independence of the judicial process from media interference.
Judges enjoy legal immunity for actions taken in the course of their judicial duties. They cannot be sued for their decisions, which allows them to make rulings without fear of personal legal consequences.
Despite these protections, judicial independence faces several ongoing challenges:
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.