Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
| Supreme Court of the United Kingdom | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
 | |
| Established | 1 October 2009 |
| Location | Middlesex Guildhall, London |
| Composition method | Appointed by Monarch on advice of Prime Minister. Chosen name recommended to PM by a selection commission. |
| Authorized by | Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Part 3[1] |
| Judge term length | Life tenure with mandatory retirement at the age of 70 |
| Number of positions | 12 |
| Website | www.supremecourt.gov.uk |
| President of the Supreme Court | |
| Currently | Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers |
| Since | 1 October 2009 |
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the supreme court in all matters under English law, Northern Irish law and Scottish civil law. It is the court of last resort and highest appellate court in the United Kingdom; however the High Court of Justiciary remains the supreme court for criminal cases in Scotland. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to devolution in the United Kingdom and concerning the legal powers of the three devolved governments or laws made by the devolved legislatures. It is housed in Middlesex Guildhall—which it shares with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—in the City of Westminster.
The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009.[1][2] It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 professional judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Due to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the court is limited in its powers of judicial review, unlike the constitutional courts of some other countries. This means that it cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.[3] However it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires of the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made. Furthermore, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility which means that it believes that the legislation subject to the declaration is incompatible with one of the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and such a declaration can apply equally to primary and secondary legislation. The legislation is not overturned by the declaration but effectively ceases to have effect, and powers under section 10 of the act are triggered to allow ministers to amend the legislation by statutory instrument to remove the incompatibility.[4]
Jurisdiction
| This article is part of a series on |
| Politics of the United Kingdom |
|---|
_(Tudor_Crown).svg) |
 United Kingdom portal |
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
The main role of the UK Supreme Court is to hear appeals from courts in the United Kingdom's three legal systems: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. (English and Welsh law differ only to the extent that the National Assembly for Wales makes laws for Wales that differ from those in England, and the two countries have a shared court system.) The Supreme Court acts as the highest court for civil appeals from the Court of Session in Scotland but the highest appeal for criminal cases is kept in Scotland.[5] It may hear appeals from the civil Court of Session, just as the House of Lords did previously.
From the Court of Session, permission to appeal is not required and any case can proceed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom if two Advocates certify that an appeal is suitable. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, leave to appeal is required either from the Court of Appeal or from a Justice of the Supreme Court itself.
The Court's focus is on cases that raise points of law of general public importance. Like the previous Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, appeals from many fields of law are likely to be selected for hearing—including commercial disputes, family matters, judicial review claims against public authorities and issues under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Court also hears some criminal appeals, but not from Scotland as there is no right of appeal from the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland's highest criminal court.
The Supreme Court also determines "devolution issues" (as defined by the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006). These are legal proceedings about the powers of the three devolved administrations—the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales. Devolution issues were previously heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and most are about compliance with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, brought into national law by the Devolution Acts and the Human Rights Act 1998.
The twelve justices do not all hear every case; typically a case will be heard by a panel of five justices, but sometimes the panel may consist of three, seven or nine members. All twelve justices are also members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and spend some of their time in that capacity.
History
The creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom was first mooted in a July 2003 Department of Constitutional Affairs Consultation Paper.[6] Although the report noted that there had been no criticism of the current law lords, or any indication of an actual bias, it argued that the separation of the judicial functions of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords should be made explicit from the legislative functions of the House of Lords. First, it was concerned whether there is any longer sufficient transparency of independence from the executive and the legislature to give assurance of the independence of the judiciary.[6] Looked at alternatively it was argued that requirement for the appearance of impartiality and independence also limited the ability of the Law Lords to contribute to the work of the House of Lords, thus reducing the value to both them and the House of their membership.[6] Second, it was concerned that it was not always understood by the public that judicial decisions of "the House of Lords" were in fact taken by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and that non-judicial members were never involved in its judgements. Conversely, it was felt that the extent to which the Law Lords themselves have decided to refrain from getting involved in political issues in relation to legislation on which they might later have to adjudicate was not always appreciated.[6] The new President of the Court, Lord Phillips, has claimed that their old position had confused people and that with the Supreme Court there would for the first time in the UK be a clear separation of powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive.[7] Finally, it was noted that space within the House of Lords was at a constant premium and a separate supreme court would ease the pressure on the Palace of Westminster.[6]
The main argument against the court was that the previous system had worked well and kept costs down.[8] Reformers expressed concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial and executive power in the UK might conflict with the state's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Officials who make or execute laws have an interest in court cases that put those laws to the test. When the state invests judicial authority in those officials, it puts the independence and impartiality of the courts at risk. Consequently, it was supposedly possible that the decisions of the Law Lords might be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that they had not constituted a fair trial.[9]
Lord Neuberger has expressed fear that the new court could make itself more powerful than the House of Lords committee it succeeded, saying that there is a real risk of "judges arrogating to themselves greater power than they have at the moment". Lord Phillips said such an outcome was "a possibility", but was "unlikely".[10]
The reforms were controversial and were brought forward with little consultation but were subsequently extensively debated in Parliament.[11] During 2004, a select committee of the House of Lords scrutinised the arguments for and against setting up a new court.[12] The Government estimated the set-up cost of the Supreme Court at £56.9 million.[13]
The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009. It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 professional judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Other supreme courts in the United Kingdom
The High Court of Justiciary, the Court of Session, and the Office of the Accountant of Court comprise the College of Justice, and are known as the Supreme Courts of Scotland.[14]
Before 1 October 2009, there were two other courts known as supreme court, namely the Supreme Court of England and Wales (known as the Supreme Court of Judicature until 1981), which was created in the 1870s under the Judicature Acts, and the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland, each of which consists of a Court of Appeal, High Court of Justice and Crown Court. When the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 came into force, those became known as the Senior Courts of England and Wales and the Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland respectively, to avoid confusion.
Justices
The court is composed of the President and Deputy President and 10 puisne Justices of the Supreme Court. They are not subject to term limits, but may be removed from office on the address of Parliament.[15] Like all British judges, Supreme Court justices are forced to retire at age 70 if first appointed to a judicial office after 31 March 1995, or at age 75 otherwise.[16][17] The President and Deputy President of the court are separately appointed to those roles.
Ten Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) holding office on 1 October 2009 became the first justices of the 12-member Supreme Court.[18] The 11th place on the Supreme Court was filled by Lord Clarke (formerly the Master of the Rolls), who was the first Justice to be appointed directly to the Supreme Court.[19] One of the former Law Lords, Lord Neuberger, was appointed to replace Lord Clarke as Master of the Rolls,[20] and so did not move to the new court. Sir John Dyson became the 12th and final justice of the Supreme Court on 13 April 2010, becoming entitled at the same moment to the courtesy style "Lord Dyson".[21]
The Senior Law Lord on 1 October 2009, Lord Phillips, became the Supreme Court's first President, [22] and the Second Senior Law Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, became the first Deputy President.
On 30 September 2010, Lord Saville of Newdigate became the first Justice to retire,[23] followed by Lord Collins of Mapesbury on 7 May 2011, although the latter remains as an acting justice until July 2011.
Acting judges
In addition to the twelve permanent Justices, the President may request other senior judges, drawn from two groups, to sit as "acting judges" of the Supreme Court.[24]
- The first group is those judges who hold 'office as a senior territorial judge': judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, judges of the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland and judges of the First or Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland.
- The second group is known as the 'supplementary panel'. The President may approve in writing retired senior judges' membership of this panel if they are under 75 years of age.
Appointments process
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 makes provision for a new appointments process for Justices of the Supreme Court. A selection commission will be formed when vacancies arise. This will be composed of the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission of England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. In October 2007, the Ministry of Justice announced that this appointments process would be adopted on a voluntary basis for appointments of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.[25] New judges appointed to the Supreme Court after its creation will not necessarily receive peerages, however, they will receive the titles of Lord and Lady upon appointment.[26] The President and Deputy President are appointed to those roles rather than being the most senior by tenure in office.
Current Justices
The current Justices, in order of seniority (from 13 October 2010), are as follows:
One new Justice is yet to be appointed to the Supreme Court or to be gazetted for a courtesy title:
| Name | Born | Alma mater | Taking office | Prior senior judicial roles |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Sumption QC | 9 December 1948 (age 75) |
Magdalen College, Oxford | At a date to be agreed with the President of the Supreme Court | None |
Building
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 gave time for a suitable building to be found and fitted out before the Law Lords moved out of the Houses of Parliament, where they had previously used a series of rooms strung out along a corridor in the House of Lords.[27]
After a lengthy survey of suitable sites, including Somerset House, the Government announced that the new court would be located in the Middlesex Guildhall, in Parliament Square, Westminster. That decision was the subject of an inquiry by a committee of Parliament,[28] and the grant of planning permission by Westminster City Council for refurbishment works was challenged in judicial review proceedings by the conservation group SAVE Britain's Heritage.[29] It was also reported that English Heritage had been put under enormous pressure to approve the scheme.[30] Feilden + Mawson LLP, supported by Foster & Partners, were appointed architects for the project.[31]
The building had formerly been used as a headquarters for Middlesex County Council and the Middlesex Quarter Sessions, and later as a Crown Court centre.
Badge
The official badge of the Supreme Court was granted by the College of Arms in October 2008.[32] It comprises both the Greek letter omega (representing finality) and the symbol of Libra (symbolising the scales of justice), in addition to the four floral emblems of the United Kingdom: a Tudor rose, representing England, conjoined with the leaves of a leek, representing Wales; a flax for Northern Ireland; and a thistle, representing Scotland.[33]
Two adapted versions of its official badge are used by the Supreme Court. One (above, in infobox at top right portion of this article) features the words "The Supreme Court" and the letter omega in black (in the official badge granted by the College of Arms, the interior of the Latin and Greek letters are gold and white, respectively), and displays a simplified version of the crown (also in black) and larger, stylised versions of the floral emblems; this modified version of the badge is featured on the new Supreme Court website,[34] as well as in the forms that will be used by the Supreme Court.[35] A further variant on the above omits the crown entirely and is featured prominently throughout the building.[36]
Yet another emblem is formed from a more abstract set of depictions of the four floral emblems and is used in the carpets of the Middlesex Guildhall. It was designed by Sir Peter Blake, famous for designing the cover of The Beatles' 1967 album, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.[37][38]
See also
- Courts of the United Kingdom
- Courts of England and Wales
- Courts of Northern Ireland
- Courts of Scotland
- 2009 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- 2010 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- 2011 Judgments of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
- List of House of Lords cases
- UKSCblog
References
- ^ a b "Part 3, Constitutional Reform Act 2005". Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Vol. 4. 2005-03-24. p. 3. Retrieved 2009-09-02.
- ^ Statutory Instrument 2009 No. 1604 The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (Commencement No. 11) Order 2009 (Coming into force 2009-10-01)
- ^ "Britain's new Supreme Court" The Times Literary Supplement, September 2, 2009
- ^ Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial) Order 2001, Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004 and Marriage Act 1949 (Remedial) Order 2007.
- ^ Scottish Courts website
- ^ a b c d e "Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom" (Document). Department of Constitutional Affairs. July 2003.
{{cite document}}: Unknown parameter|url=ignored (help) - ^ "New Supreme Court opens with media barred". The Daily Telegraph. London. 1 October 2009. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
For the first time, we have a clear separation of powers between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive in the United Kingdom. This is important. It emphasises the independence of the judiciary, clearly separating those who make the law from those who administer it.
[dead link] - ^ Wakeham report 2000, Chapter 9, Recomendation 57.
- ^ "The Supreme Court is an unnecessary attack on the constitution". The Daily Telegraph. London. 1 October 2009. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
The Government argued that there must be a separation in order to comply with Article Six of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees a fair trial.
[dead link] - ^ Rozenberg, Joshua (8 September 2009). "Fear over UK Supreme Court impact". BBC News Online.
- ^ See A Le Sueur, 'From Appellate Committee to Supreme Court: A Narrative', chap 5 in L. Blom-Cooper, G. Drewry and B. Dickson (eds),The Judicial House of Lords (Oxford University Press, 2009); Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 17/2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1374357
- ^ "Lords Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill First Report".
- ^ "Written Answer of the Ministry of Justice to question posed by Lord Steinberg (Col. WA102". Lords Hansard. 2008-03-26.
- ^ "Scottish Court Service: An Introduction" (PDF). Scottish Court Service. Retrieved 2008-05-23.
The Supreme Courts are made up of the Court of Session, the High Court of Justiciary and the Accountant of Court's Office
- ^ Section 33 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005
- ^ Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993
- ^ Pannick, David (26 March 2009). "Seventy is far too early for a supreme court judge to retire". Times Online. London.
- ^ Constitutional Reform Act 2005, section 24
- ^ "Justice of the UK Supreme Court". Number10.gov.uk. London, United Kingdom: Prime Minister's Office. 2009-04-20. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
- ^ Frances Gibb (2009-07-23). "Lord Neuberger named Master of the Rolls". Times Online. London: Times Newspapers Ltd. Retrieved 2009-08-30.
- ^ Frances Gibb (23 March 2010). "New Supreme Court justice - Sir John Dyson".
- ^ "Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers appointed as senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary".
- ^ The Guardian — Supreme Court vacancy
- ^ Constitutional Reform Act 2005, section 38
- ^ "Supreme Court - new appointments process - Ministry of Justice". Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 2010-05-16.
- ^ "Courtesy titles for Justices of the Supreme Court" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. 2010-12-13. Retrieved 2010-12-14.
- ^ "Truly the Supremes? Reflections on the New Court, UKSC Blog". Retrieved 2009-10-07. [dead link]
- ^ "Minutes of Oral Evidence Taken before the Constitutional Affairs Committee 17 April 2007". Retrieved 2008-05-23.
- ^ "The Queen on the application of Save Britain's Heritage v. Westminster City Council". High Court (Administrative Court). Retrieved 2008-05-23.
- ^ Binney, Marcus (22 June 2006). "Lord Falconer's supreme blunder". London: The Times. Retrieved 2008-10-26.
- ^ "Questions to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, 15 January 2007 (Col. 877W)". Commons Hansard.
- ^ "The College of Arms Newsletter". College of Arms. December 2008. Retrieved 2009-02-25.
- ^ "Official emblem of the UK Supreme Court announced". Ministry of Justice (HM Government). 28 October 2008. Retrieved 2009-07-25.
- ^ "The Supreme Court". The Supreme Court. Retrieved 2010-05-16.
- ^ http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/sc001_0409x1.pdf
- ^ "In pictures: UK Supreme Court". BBC News Online. BBC News. 15 July 2009. Retrieved 18 August 2009.
- ^ "Inside the UK Supreme Court". BBC News Online. BBC News. 15 July 2009. Retrieved 18 August 2009.
- ^ "THE WIDER VIEW: Inside the imposing interior of Britain's new £36m Supreme Court". Daily Mail. London. 2 August 2009. Retrieved 18 August 2009.
Further reading
- The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: History, Art, Architecture Chris Miele ed. (Merrell) ISBN 978-1-8589-4508-8
- Le Sueur, ed. (2004-03-18), Building the UK's New Supreme Court: National and Comparative Perspectives, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-926462-7, retrieved 2010-05-16
- Morgan, Derek (ed). Constitutional Innovation: the creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom (A special issue of the Legal Studies, the Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars).
External links
- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom official website
- Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court site
- "Grand designs". BBC News. 2007-03-07. Retrieved 2007-03-07.
- Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Blog A blog covering UKSC cases and proceedings, run by a law firm with a significant Supreme Court practice group. Similar to SCOTUSblog in the United States.
- UK Supreme Court: Much ado about nothing? in the Harvard Law Record