• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Discuss the indepedence of the UK Judiciary

Extracts from this document...


'Discuss the independence of the UK judiciary' Judicial independence can be defined in three basic points, these are; the independence of judges from the two other branches of government, that is the legislature and executive; the independence from various political ideologies, public and media pressure; and the independence of an individual judge from superiors in the judicial hierarchy, so that a judge can decide each case solely upon his or hers best view of what the law requires. So basically for the judiciary to be independent it must be exempt from interference in its conductivity by the other two branches of government, the legislature and executive, and also pressure exerted from various outside opinions e.g. media, public. In the 1740's a French political philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu came up with the idea of the 'separation of powers'. He suggested that in a democracy no single individual should serve in more than one branch of government, this in result would eliminate the possibility of dictatorship. He believed there were three essential elements of the government: the legislature (which makes the laws); the executive (which administers these laws); and the judiciary (which judges according to these laws). Montesquieu argued that as long as these three branches were kept separate the democracy would survive as a well organised political system. ...read more.


In certain cases some law lords were quite active legislators. The constitutional reform act of 2005 invalidates this perfect illustration of a fusion of powers. Another case dismissing judicial independence is the existence of the Lord Chancellor. The head of the legal system and a judge (well he is in theory - despite the fact he very rarely judges) was before 2005, the Lord Chancellor. This title was appointed by the prime minister; the chancellor was a member of the government and sat regularly in the cabinet. In effect he was the leading parliamentary figure in the House of Lords, the second chamber of the legislature; he ran meetings there as the speaker does in the House of Commons. All of this was a good indication that the judiciary was indeed not independent. A subject often spoke about when talking about the independence of judges is how they are appointed. The system for appointing judges to the UK Supreme Court follows a two stage model known as 'nomination & confirmation'. Appointments to the judiciary are made by the monarch, which means that in effect, until the reforms of 2005, judges were part of the government patronage. The prime minister appointed to the court of appeal and to the judicial committee of the House of Lords (the law lords), having required advice on his appointments from the Lord Chancellor. ...read more.


As with lots of other issues in British politics, this along with them is probable to be the best defence concerning the freedom of the press. There are other various pressure groups specialising in this area too, such as: Liberty, Charter88 and Justice. After an overview of all of the points for and against judicial independence within the UK it is clear that there needs to be big change in order for it to actually exist. It is debated that the Civil Rights Act will enforce judicial independence although this is highly unlikely due to the executive and legislature's powers to remove and alter these laws at any time. It seems that the only real answer to adopting judicial independence in this country would be to have a codified constitution, this way the government could not interfere on such issues as judicial independence and then we could eventually have a judiciary system that is in fact independent. A duplication of the American system would also seem a likely possibility to ensuring judicial independence, but how far our parliament are willing to go to ensure this aspect of our government exists, isn't looking too good. Many are doubtful that our parliament will go as far as too adopt the American system as parliamentary sovereignty would then be abolished. However this and a codified constitution appear to be the only realistic options available for our judiciary to be independent. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United Kingdom section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United Kingdom essays

  1. To what extent are judges neutral and independent?

    This prevents political pressure being placed on judges by the executive or legislative and therefore allows them to make a just decision. If they believe there has been too much govt. influence, they may release the defendant citing a mistrial, another incentive for the government to stay out of affairs so judges can make a fair and uninfluenced decision.

  2. The Assassins A man, who is about thirty years old, was sitting at an ...

    lure him out in the open so that he and his place would be exposed to her. She was to kill him so that other spies would have a clear shot at murdering the prime minister of England. He had heard enough.

  1. "Constitutional reform had gone too far, or not far enough?" Discuss

    which allowed the proposal of a House of Lords with 80% of its members elected to be put forward. This is a clear compromise between the coalition members as the Liberal Democrats are eager to reform many aspects of Britain, including the House of Lords, whereas the Conservatives, the dominant

  2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the various ways in which participation and democracy could be ...

    family, be in full time employment, join the army and therefore die for your country; and make important decisions about your future, then you should be given the right to vote. Aside from some believing this to be the correct and moral thing to do, giving 16-17 year olds the

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work