Edexcel Government & Politics AS thread, 5th & 8th June 2017

•

Judiciary: A process whereby the courts review decisions by the state or any public body in relation to its citizens. Where a review finds that a citizen has not been treated fairly, or that their rights have been abused, or that a public body has exceeded its legal powers, the court may set aside the decision.

•

Judicial Independence: The principle that members of the judiciary should retain independence from any influence by government or parties or other political movements.

•

Judicial Neutrality: The principle that members of the judiciary should avoid allowing their political ideas to affect their decisions in cases. It also implies that judges should not show any systematic bias towards or against any groups in society.

•

Civil liberty / Civil liberties: The rights and freedoms that citizens enjoy in relation to the state and its laws. These include, for example, the right of all to vote or to stand for office, freedom of expressions, freedom of association and the right to a fair trial.

•

Judicial Review: A process whereby the courts review decisions by the state or any public body in relation to its citizens. Where a review finds that a citizen has not been treated fairly, or that their rights have been abused, or that a public body has exceeded it’s legal powers, the court may set aside the decision.

•

Rule of Law: Constitutional and legal principle that all should be treated equally under the law and that the government itself must be subject to law and should not act outside the law.

•

An increasingly large number of judgements in recent years have fallen in favour of individuals and minorities against the government. Indeed, in the mid 1990s, conservative home secretary Michael Howard lost a string of judicial review cases brought against him by prisoners in custody who claimed his prison regime abused their rights.

•

The mental Health act and Belmarsh cases, are also evidence of changing attitude of the Judiciary.

•

The implementation of the Human Rights Act in 2000 has given further ammunition for judges to use against the power of the state in favour of individual rights. Indeed, so active have the judges been in this area that conservative politicians have begun to talk of repealing the HRA and the Labour government has spoken of amending parts of it. The old charge the judiciary normally favours the powers of the state against individuals seems no longer to be true. Indeed, the situation seems to have been largely reversed.

•

The social composition of the Judiciary has changed little. As we saw above, the Supreme Court comes from a narrow social base. Nevertheless, there has been a succession of independent-minded, ‘liberal’ judges appointed to senior positions. Lords Woolf, Hoffman and Bingham are good recent examples. These individuals have been quick to criticise government for threatening civil liberties. When the senior judges are being criticised by politicians from both main parties, it suggests they may have been largely neutral. The early evidence from the supreme Court is that it is likely to show itself to be fully independent and therefore neutral. It is as ready as ever to challenge governmental power when it feels citizens’ rights are under threat of when the behaviour of government is likely to discriminate against any group in society.

•

Judges come from a narrow social and professional background. The majority are from middle and upper middle class backgrounds. They are almost exclusively male except for Lady Hale and have mostly been educated at independent schools and often graduated from Oxford and Cambridge.

•

Up to the 1990s there was a good deal of evidence to suggest the background of senior judges did affect their outlook. During the 1980’s there had been a succession of cases concerning trade union rights and activities, conflicts between central and local government, and issues about the powers of police where judgements seemed to run consistently in favour of the centralised state.

•

Many of the senior judges also have seats in the House of Lords. Up to the late 1990s this was a particularly conservative institution and the judges arguably influenced by their colleagues. The first Supreme Court which began work in 2009 certainly did not appear to be reasonably balanced in a social sense. Of its 12 members, all but one were educated at Oxford or Cambridge universities. Eleven were male and the average age was 68. The new court this looks very conservative and from a narrow social base and can’t represent the interests of the people.