any examples of judicial independence or neutrality being compromised? Searched the internet but I can't find any ones that I understand... please help - need it for homework for tomorrow and my teacher will be really cross if I can't find any
examples of judicial independence or neutraltiy Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by discoball; 02-03-2016 at 18:55.
- 02-03-2016 18:50
- 03-03-2016 18:51
Judges ARE independent because - constitutional reform act 2005. Security of tenure - judges can't be removed from their job unless corrupt or unlawful. Judges are now appointed separately since 2005 (JAC- a committeewith nonpolitical influence) used to be appointed by PM and lord chancellor. Judges now Paid by "law society" and independent branch, previously paid by parliament committee. Removal of lord chancellor ( used to be head if judiciary and in House of Lords = cross bencher and involved in legal matters with parliament. Part of all three branches)
Judges can actively create case and common law and interpret legislation.
Judges ARE not independent because statue law originally derives from parliament. (Ultimate legislative body and sovereign branch. Judges can't over turn legislation. Government often make bills that are ratified by parliament but government are drawn from uk parliament. Previous to labour reform senior judges used to sit in House of Lords. Political dialogue suggests that government may discuss judicial decisions and visa versa, judges might discuss government decisions.
judges ARE neutral because:
Judges have a lot to loose if they are impeached (security of tenure and job) the more judges are neutral the less they are in the spot light. Direct democracy = citizens having a day and holding branches of government to account. E.g London riots 2011 citizens were unhappy with sentences. 1989s trade unions and miners sentencing.
Rule of law - judges should be free from bias to uphold rule of law and treat every citizen equally and giving people a fair trial (rights and obligations ) or uk citizens under new labour act in 1990s.
Judges ARE not neutral because:
"Oxbridge" many politicians and judges are from a background of white, male arestocratcs. ( middle class / upper class backgrounds ) In Supreme Court predominantly male. There is lady hale. Their political interest and dialogue between social groups may influence their opinion based on their culture, beliefs norms and and values. Could be argued to be unrepresentative to society. Supreme Court - All 12 members are from Oxford or Cambridge.
Griffith theory 1977 - outlines how no matter how neutral a judge may be, they will always hold fundamental beliefs, Thoughts and values which can influence a decision made. Beliefs from a social background. Especially in women cases or sexuality or ethnicity as judges are Avearge age of 68 they may hold prejudice and historical patriarchal views which e.g case of Steven Lawrence (institutional racism) or trade unions during thatchers ministerial years. Judges mirrored views of parliament when issuing sentences.
However, aren't branches meant to be "fused" and "unitary" with the U.K. Unodified constitution? With uk being the slow lane in the EU perhaps uk are just slowly evolving to federalism like the traditional constitution it is.
- Thread Starter
- 05-03-2016 10:57
Thanks this helped a lot