This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

A UK supreme court?

Reply 20

Cellardore

11

Solis Invictus

We already have one - the House of Lords. And it does a damn fine job. We dont need this American nonsense.

they don't have much power. Although they can sudpend bills, but that's about it.
Would these judges be unelected?

Reply 21

an Siarach

15

Solis Invictus

We already have one - the House of Lords. And it does a damn fine job. We dont need this American nonsense.

Increase the powers of the House of Lords rather then create a new court then?

Reply 22

kingslaw

14

A UK Supreme Court would be only be "Supreme" by name. In reality, the Supreme Court would have as much remit as the present most powerful court in the land - the House of Lords. The Supreme Court would come under the same constitutional category as the various law-making bodies of the European Union - in other words, despite being bound to decisions made by such bodies, Parliament would still be ultimately supreme. The constitutionally ingrained supremacy of Parliament means that, ultimately, politicians still hold all the power in British society. For recent proof of this simply look towards the recent decision regarding the Home Secretary and the person incharge of Humberside police.

Infact, if anything, the law-making bodies of the European Union has more practical power than a UK Supreme Court as rejection of European law, and in effect, the European Union has so many political and economical repurcussion that any majority party in Parliament would never dream of doing it. The repurcussions of a rejection of the Supreme Court would not be quite so disasterous.

So in conclusion, I dont think a Supreme Court would really have that major effect on the realities of the British judiciary. Any changes would simply be cosmetic - the advantage for Labour being that whenever we see a decision made by this court, we will think of Blair and his crusaders. This is nothing but political.

Reply 23

kingslaw

14

an Siarach

Increase the powers of the House of Lords rather then create a new court then?

There are only two ways of increasing the judicial powers of the House of Lords:

a) Overturn the Factortame case (which embedded the supremacy of European law over UK law) which would effect withdrawal from the EU, or
b)Scrap the concept of ultimate supremacy of the legislative in Parliament.

Out of those two highly unlikely option, a) would be the most plausable, but also wouldnt actually give the HoL much more power. b) would simply be unworkable unless we went to some sort of US-style system. That would be a major development and I dont know if any government would ever feel it had the authority to make such revolutionary changes.

Reply 24

NDGAARONDI

OP

16

an Siarach

Increase the powers of the House of Lords rather then create a new court then?

Do you think they should have their powers increased? I'm not so interested in a court striking down statutes but there's a need to control the Executive, since really it's them who are sovereign in practice.

Reply 25

tkfmbp

The UK doesn't need a Supreme Court. It's main purpose in the USA is to make sure that "checks and balances" are carried out, i.e. that laws are constitutional. Ipso facto, we don't need a Supreme Court because we don't have a constitution. We already have a body, HoL, that ensures that undesirable bills do not become laws and they do it well.

A supreme court would still answer to the European Courts anyway, so why bother ? :smile:

Reply 26

NDGAARONDI

OP

16

tkfmbp

A supreme court would still answer to the European Courts anyway, so why bother ? :smile:

True but not all of our laws are answerable to them, they like to think so. Only on European matters.

I, generally speaking, would like to see judicial power increased, not just our highest court, since that is not used much compared to the Court of Appeal for example.

How about a decent control on delegated legislation?

Reply 27

B00kwOrm

1

It's probably more a matter of principle than of practicality. The UK doesn't necessarily need a Supreme Court. But if one goes by the ideas of Montesquieu, whereby in a democratic the three powers must be separated, then surely a body which makes legislation and checks its compatibility with the Law and the Constitution (which Britain doesn't have) is totally unacceptable.

Also, according to this principle the post of Lord Chancellor should be abolished because he is member of the Legislative branch as Chairman of a Chamber of Parliament (HoL), member of the Executive (he sits in the Cabinet) and involved in the Judiciary, as the House of Lords Appelate Committee.

I'm not British, please correct me if I said something wrong but I think this is the way it works...

Reply 28

tkfmbp

NDGAARONDI

True but not all of our laws are answerable to them, they like to think so. Only on European matters.

Am i wrong in thinking that any appeal rejected in the UK in the HoL can go to the European Courts of Appeal etc ? Please correct me if i am wrong, because i hope to study Law at Uni next year so it would be useful for me to know!!

Marc

Reply 29

NDGAARONDI

OP

16

tkfmbp

Am i wrong in thinking that any appeal rejected in the UK in the HoL can go to the European Courts of Appeal etc ? Please correct me if i am wrong, because i hope to study Law at Uni next year so it would be useful for me to know!!

Marc

Yes but they only really hear appeals on European issues.

The H/L only hears around 50 or so cases a year, about 5-10 are only criminal. The ECJ has yet to hear a criminal case concerning England, anyone know of one please tell me the case.

With EU changing, yes things can change, but not right now.

Reply 30

Howard

5

Solis Invictus

We already have one - the House of Lords. And it does a damn fine job. We dont need this American nonsense.

The HL is not a Supreme Court in the same way the US Supreme Court is. It isn't a constitutional court and is powerless to strike down Parliament's legislation as unconstitutional. The HL is the highest court in the land and that's about all.

Reply 31

NDGAARONDI

OP

16

Howard

The HL is not a Supreme Court in the same way the US Supreme Court is. It isn't a constitutional court and is powerless to strike down Parliament's legislation as unconstitutional. The HL is the highest court in the land and that's about all.

I suppose you could argue that with the enactment of the Human Rights Act, that the House of Lords when they decide on cases involving this statute, that they act more of a constitutional court such as the one in South Africa than a supreme court.

Supreme by its name (for the proposed UK one) is just as logical as calling supreme such as the Canadian Supreme Court. Since there was until a certain date (which I have forgotten) where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could override any cases decided by the Canadian Supreme Court.

Reply 32

Investmentboy

NDGAARONDI

Yes I understand your comments and this is what I felt when I first heard about it. The House of Lords is a final court of appeal but in no ways is it supreme. They cannot declare statutes unconstitutional. Although I have always wondered the actual definition of a supreme court itself. Since there are several countries who have them but differ on their functions and powers.

Surly by declaring statutes unconstitutional they become unconstitutional themselves as they are not democratically elected by the people and are changing the acts which are made by an elected body.

Reply 33

NDGAARONDI

OP

16

Investmentboy

Surly by declaring statutes unconstitutional they become unconstitutional themselves as they are not democratically elected by the people and are changing the acts which are made by an elected body.

Wouldn't that make the position of PM also unconstitutional? I don't know anyone who voted him leader outside of Sedgefield.

So what if they're not elected? The public trust judges more than politicians. I'd rather go with someone who has decent qualifications and can trust rather than by a collection of people who are elected by a not so democratic electoral system.

Reply 34

LH

15

NDGAARONDI

Wouldn't that make the position of PM also unconstitutional? I don't know anyone who voted him leader outside of Sedgefield.

So what if they're not elected? The public trust judges more than politicians. I'd rather go with someone who has decent qualifications and can trust rather than by a collection of people who are elected by a not so democratic electoral system.

But how fairly are judges chosen?

Reply 35

Investmentboy

Lord Huntroyde

But how fairly are judges chosen?

Very unfairly, from QC's which are usually oxbridge grads, who are middle aged, middle class and middle minded

Reply 36

LH

15

Investmentboy

Very unfairly, from QC's which are usually oxbridge grads, who are middle aged, middle class and middle minded

and white.

Reply 37

NDGAARONDI

OP

16

Lord Huntroyde

But how fairly are judges chosen?

Yes I agree. And just because you have a first from Oxford doesn't mean you will make a better judge if you had a first from Liverpool or Queen Mary's, or even a 2:1 for that matter.

Reply 38

nen

Blood & Honour

The HRA prevents the HOC to legistale upon such matters. For example it is impossible for the HOC to debate on reintroducing the death penalty due to it conflciting with protocol 10.
We cannot introduce torture dispite in todays world this may be necessary to gain information from terror suspects.
It was also illegal to publish the new names of the jamie buldger killers as it conflcited with their right to life.

torture has no place in a democratic society and can never be justified. it is therefore right that it is prevented from being debated and reintroduced.

surely a supreme court would be a step away from democracy

Reply 39

NDGAARONDI

OP

16

nen

surely a supreme court would be a step away from democracy

Why do you say this?

A UK supreme court?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you