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 UK Supreme Court — the highest court of appeal in the United Kingdom and, since its creation, the most visible symbol of judicial power in British politics. Established by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and operational since 1 October 2009, the Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the final domestic court of appeal. For Edexcel A-Level Politics, Component 2 (UK Government, Section A), you must understand why the Court was created, how it is composed and appointed, what functions it performs, and — crucially for evaluation — whether its creation has genuinely increased judicial power or merely made existing power more visible. That last question is the analytical heart of the topic, because the Court's striking modern profile sits alongside the unchanged reality of parliamentary sovereignty.
Before October 2009, the highest court of appeal in the UK was the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The senior judges who sat on it — the "Law Lords", formally the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary — were simultaneously members of the legislature's upper chamber and the most senior judges in the land. This fusion, tolerated for generations, came to be seen as constitutionally unsatisfactory for several reasons:
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA), enacted under Tony Blair's Labour government, addressed these concerns through a package of reforms. Its three headline changes were:
The Supreme Court began hearing cases on 1 October 2009. The twelve serving Law Lords transferred across to become the first Justices of the new Court, which is why a crucial point for evaluation is that the Court inherited its jurisdiction and powers unchanged from the Appellate Committee — what altered was its institutional form, not the legal authority it wielded.
The creation of the Supreme Court has an instructive political backstory that helps explain both its purpose and the controversy that surrounded it. The reform was announced abruptly on 12 June 2003, in the course of a Cabinet reshuffle, when the long-serving Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine was replaced by Lord Falconer. On the same day the government announced its intention to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor as then constituted, to remove the Law Lords from the legislature, and to create a separate Supreme Court. Lord Falconer, who became the first Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (and the last Lord Chancellor in the old sense), was given the task of carrying the legislation through Parliament.
The manner of the announcement drew heavy criticism. It emerged that the implications had not been fully worked through — the ancient office of Lord Chancellor could not simply be abolished overnight, given its many statutory functions — and the proposals had to be revised as they passed through Parliament. The episode is often cited as an example of constitutional reform undertaken hastily and without sufficient consultation, and it left the office of Lord Chancellor reformed rather than abolished. For A-Level Politics, the lesson is twofold: the reform reflected a genuine principled drive to improve the separation of powers, but its botched launch illustrates the risks of piecemeal, uncodified constitutional change driven by short-term political considerations.
The Supreme Court has twelve Justices, formally appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of an independent selection commission. The senior judge is the President, supported by a Deputy President. Cases are heard not by all twelve together but by panels: most appeals are decided by a panel of five Justices, while cases of particular constitutional or legal importance are heard by larger panels of seven, nine, or — exceptionally — eleven. The size of the panel signals the significance the Court attaches to a case: Miller II (2019) was heard by a panel of all eleven justices then available to sit, underlining its constitutional weight.
Key Term: The UK Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in the UK, comprising twelve Justices and created by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to replace the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.
It is important to grasp from the outset that, despite its name, the UK Supreme Court is not a constitutional court in the continental or American sense. A true constitutional court exists primarily to test legislation against an entrenched constitution and can strike down laws that fail that test. The UK Supreme Court, by contrast, is fundamentally an appellate court — the apex of the ordinary system of appeals — which also happens to decide constitutional and human-rights questions when they arise in litigation. Because Parliament is sovereign and there is no codified higher law against which to measure statute, the Court cannot invalidate primary legislation. This is why the choice of the name "Supreme Court" was itself controversial: critics worried it would mislead the public into thinking the new body had US-style powers to override Parliament, when in fact its supremacy is confined to being the final court of appeal, not a final authority over Parliament.
When a vacancy arises, an ad hoc selection commission is convened specifically for that appointment. It comprises the President of the Supreme Court (or another senior judge), a senior judge from elsewhere in the UK, and members drawn from the independent judicial appointments bodies of England and Wales (the JAC), Scotland (the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland), and Northern Ireland (the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission). Drawing representation from all three jurisdictions reflects the Court's UK-wide role.
The commission selects on merit and recommends a candidate to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor's role is deliberately constrained: for a given recommendation, the Lord Chancellor may accept it, reject it once, or ask for it to be reconsidered once — but cannot impose a candidate of their own choosing. This carefully limited ministerial involvement is designed to keep the appointment of the country's most powerful judges substantially free of political control, reinforcing both the independence and the perceived legitimacy of the Court.
| President | Term |
|---|---|
| Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers | 2009–2012 |
| Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury | 2012–2017 |
| Lady Hale of Richmond | 2017–2020 |
| Lord Reed of Allermuir | 2020–present |
Lady Hale holds a particular place in the Court's history as its first female President (2017-2020) and, earlier, the first woman appointed to the Court. She presided over the Miller II / Cherry prorogation case in 2019, delivering the unanimous judgment that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful — the most dramatic moment in the Court's history to date and a striking demonstration of the visibility the Court had acquired.
The Supreme Court performs five principal functions, several of which carry significant political weight.
The Court is the final court of appeal for civil cases from all parts of the UK (England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) and for criminal cases from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. A notable exception is Scottish criminal cases: the final criminal appeal court in Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary, not the UK Supreme Court, a reflection of Scotland's distinct legal system. The Court hears appeals on points of law of "general public importance". It does not retry the facts of a case; it decides whether the law was correctly interpreted and applied by the courts below, and its rulings then bind every lower court through the doctrine of precedent.
This appellate function, though less dramatic than the Court's constitutional rulings, is its core day-to-day work and the foundation of its authority. By selecting only cases that raise points of genuine general importance — permission to appeal is required, and most applications are refused — the Court ensures that its limited capacity is devoted to questions whose resolution will shape the law for everyone. Because a single Supreme Court ruling binds the entire hierarchy of lower courts thereafter, a relatively small number of decisions each year can have a wide and lasting impact on the law of contract, tort, crime, tax, and public law. The careful use of larger panels for the most significant cases reflects the Court's awareness that its rulings carry this far-reaching precedential weight.
The Court hears the most significant cases of judicial review, in which it determines whether decisions and actions of government ministers and public bodies are lawful. This is among its most politically charged functions, since it allows the Court to discipline the executive between elections. Example: In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (2017), the Court ruled 8-3 that the government could not use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 and begin EU withdrawal without statutory authority, because doing so would strip away rights Parliament had created. The decision did not block Brexit; it required that Parliament, not ministers acting alone, authorise the process — a textbook assertion of the legal limits on executive power.
Because the UK has no codified constitution, the Supreme Court frequently has to resolve constitutional questions about the respective powers of Parliament, the executive, and the devolved institutions. Example: In R (Miller) v The Prime Minister (2019), the Court ruled unanimously (11-0) that the advice given by Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, void, and of no effect, because it frustrated Parliament's ability to perform its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This is widely regarded as the most significant constitutional ruling since the Court's creation, and it showed the Court willing to bring even the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament within the supervision of the law.
The Court is the final arbiter of devolution disputes, deciding whether the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru (the Welsh Parliament), or the Northern Ireland Assembly have acted within their legislative competence. Example: In the Reference by the Lord Advocate concerning a second Scottish independence referendum (2022), the Court ruled unanimously that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to legislate for such a referendum without the consent of the UK Parliament, because the matter related to the reserved subject of the Union. The case shows the Court policing the boundaries of devolution — a function that did not exist in its modern form for the old Appellate Committee.
Under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court interprets legislation compatibly with Convention rights where possible (section 3) and, where this is impossible, may issue a declaration of incompatibility (section 4). A declaration does not invalidate the law; it signals to Parliament that the law breaches Convention rights, leaving Parliament to decide whether to amend it. In practice, almost every declaration has been followed by legislative change, even though Parliament is under no legal obligation to act — a pattern that illustrates the "constitutional dialogue" between the courts and the legislature.
A further dimension of the Court's protective role is its defence of access to justice as a constitutional principle in its own right. In R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (2017), the Court unanimously struck down the fees that had been imposed for bringing claims in employment tribunals, holding that they unlawfully impeded the constitutional right of access to the courts and were therefore ultra vires the minister's powers. The case is significant because the Court did not rely on the Human Rights Act at all; it grounded its decision in long-standing common-law constitutional principle. This shows the Supreme Court actively safeguarding the conditions that make the rule of law real, and it is a reminder that the Court's rights-protecting function rests on the common law as well as on statute.
A favourite exam question asks what the creation of the Supreme Court actually changed. The table below sets out the key contrasts.
| Feature | Appellate Committee of the House of Lords | UK Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|
| Location | Within the Palace of Westminster | Separate building (Middlesex Guildhall) |
| Relationship to Parliament | Law Lords were members of the legislature | Justices are not members of any legislature |
| Visibility | Low — proceedings little followed by the public | High — hearings are televised and attract major media attention |
| Appointments | Dominated by the Lord Chancellor | Independent selection commission, merit-based |
| Perception of independence | Compromised by the dual judicial-legislative role | Strengthened by institutional separation |
| Powers and jurisdiction | Final appellate jurisdiction | The same appellate jurisdiction, inherited unchanged |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.