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 the role of the judiciary within the UK political system. Understanding the judiciary is essential for Edexcel A-Level Politics because the courts play a crucial part in upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and checking the power of both Parliament and the executive. The judiciary sits alongside the legislature and the executive as one of the three branches of government.
The judiciary refers to the branch of government responsible for interpreting and applying the law. Judges do not make law in the way that Parliament does; instead, they resolve disputes, determine the meaning of statutes, and ensure that government actions are lawful.
In the UK, the judiciary includes:
Key Term: The judiciary is the collective term for all judges and courts responsible for the administration of justice.
The judiciary performs several essential functions within the UK constitutional framework:
Statutes passed by Parliament must be interpreted before they can be applied to real-world situations. Words in legislation are not always clear, and judges must determine their meaning. There are different approaches to statutory interpretation:
Example: In Pepper v Hart (1993), the House of Lords ruled that courts could consult Hansard (the record of parliamentary debates) to clarify the meaning of ambiguous legislation. This was a significant shift, as previously courts had been barred from considering parliamentary proceedings.
Once the law has been interpreted, judges must apply it to the facts of specific cases. This means examining the evidence, hearing arguments from both sides, and reaching a verdict or judgment.
In criminal cases, this involves deciding guilt or innocence (or directing a jury to do so) and, if the defendant is found guilty, imposing a sentence. In civil cases, judges determine liability and may award damages, injunctions, or other remedies.
The doctrine of precedent (also known as stare decisis, meaning "let the decision stand") is central to how the judiciary applies the law. Under this doctrine:
This creates a body of case law (also called common law) that supplements and sometimes clarifies statute law.
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine whether a decision made by a public body (such as a government minister, a local authority, or a public agency) was lawful. It is one of the most important functions of the judiciary in the UK.
Judicial review does NOT assess whether a decision was right or wrong in policy terms — only whether the decision-maker acted within their legal powers and followed proper procedures.
The three traditional grounds for judicial review, established by Lord Diplock in the GCHQ case (1985), are:
| Ground | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Illegality | The decision-maker did not have the legal power to make the decision, or misunderstood the law (acted ultra vires). |
| Irrationality | The decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it (Wednesbury unreasonableness). |
| Procedural impropriety | The decision-maker failed to follow a fair procedure — for example, not giving affected parties a chance to be heard. |
A fourth ground — proportionality — has become increasingly important, especially in cases involving human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Proportionality asks whether the action taken was no more than necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
Example: In R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 (beginning the process of leaving the EU) without an Act of Parliament. The government had acted ultra vires — beyond its legal authority.
The judiciary plays a critical role in protecting the rights of individuals against the state. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) came into force in 2000, UK courts have been able to hear cases based on the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Under the HRA:
Example: In A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) — commonly known as the Belmarsh case — the House of Lords ruled that the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with Articles 5 (right to liberty) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR.
The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law — the principle that all persons, institutions, and the state are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated.
The rule of law, as formulated by A. V. Dicey, requires:
Without an independent judiciary willing to enforce these principles, the rule of law would be merely aspirational. Judges are the mechanism by which legal limits on state power are given practical effect.
The separation of powers is the constitutional principle that the three branches of government — the legislature (Parliament), the executive (the government), and the judiciary (the courts) — should be separate and independent, acting as checks on one another.
In the UK, the separation of powers has historically been incomplete:
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 addressed these concerns by:
These reforms strengthened the separation of powers and enhanced the perceived independence and legitimacy of the judiciary.
Arguments that judges are too powerful:
Arguments that judges are NOT too powerful:
| Judicial Activism | Judicial Restraint | |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Judges are willing to use their powers broadly, interpret legislation expansively, and rule on politically sensitive matters. | Judges defer to Parliament and the executive, interpreting legislation narrowly and avoiding political controversies. |
| Example | The Miller (2019) prorogation case, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. | R (Nicklinson) (2014), where the Court deferred to Parliament on assisted dying. |
| Support | Necessary to protect rights and the rule of law when Parliament and the executive fail to do so. | Respects the democratic mandate of elected politicians and avoids judges overstepping their role. |
| Criticism | May undermine democracy by allowing unelected judges to override elected decision-makers. | May leave rights unprotected if Parliament fails to act. |
The UK judiciary operates very differently from the US judiciary:
| Feature | UK | US |
|---|---|---|
| Can strike down legislation? | No — can only issue declarations of incompatibility | Yes — the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional |
| Written constitution? | No codified constitution | Yes — the US Constitution is the supreme law |
| Appointment | Via the Judicial Appointments Commission (merit-based) | Presidential nomination, Senate confirmation (highly politicised) |
| Politicisation | Judges are expected to be politically neutral | Appointments are openly partisan (e.g. liberal/conservative justices) |
| Number of Supreme Court justices | 12 | 9 |
The US Supreme Court is far more powerful in constitutional terms because it can strike down legislation that violates the Constitution. The UK Supreme Court, operating under parliamentary sovereignty, does not have this power.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Judiciary | The branch of government that interprets and applies the law. |
| Judicial review | The process by which courts assess whether a public body's decision was lawful. |
| Ultra vires | Acting beyond one's legal powers — a ground for judicial review. |
| Precedent | The principle that decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts. |
| Rule of law | The principle that all persons and institutions are subject to and accountable under the law. |
| Separation of powers | The constitutional principle that the legislature, executive, and judiciary should be independent. |
| Declaration of incompatibility | A court's formal statement that a law is incompatible with the ECHR — it does not invalidate the law. |
| Judicial activism | When judges interpret the law broadly and are willing to rule on politically sensitive issues. |
| Judicial restraint | When judges defer to Parliament and interpret the law narrowly, avoiding political controversies. |
"The judiciary has become too powerful in UK politics." Evaluate this statement.
In favour:
Against:
Balanced conclusion: The judiciary has become more visible and more active since the HRA and the creation of the Supreme Court, but its power remains fundamentally constrained by parliamentary sovereignty. The tension between judicial independence and democratic accountability is an ongoing feature of the UK constitution, not a crisis.
This content is aligned with the Edexcel A-Level Politics specification, Component 2: UK Government, Topic 5 — The Supreme Court and Rights.