Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

The British Judiciary is both independent and impartial

Better Essays
1176 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The British Judiciary is both independent and impartial
The British judiciary is both independent and impartial?
The Judiciary of the United Kingdom is not a single body. Each of the separate legal systems in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland has their own judiciary. The British Judiciary plays a vital part in British Politics. This is unblemished as the judicial system is significantly responsible for a multitude of political roles. The senior judiciary help interpret the meaning of law and directly enforce the rule of law. Similarly they also declare and interpret common law in addition to reviewing executive decision.
Essentially the judiciary thrives as a noteworthy system that has been rooted in British history for numerous years. It substantiates to be an efficient system that functions smoothly. So much so that other countries have been influenced to directly copy the system in Britain, many countries are still changing and evolving their current systems to meet the needs of their societies. The British judiciary is widely regarded as one of the best and most independent systems in the world. However the question pondered recently is how independent and neutral is the British judiciary?
An independent judiciary is Significant as it results in a justice system that is not influenced by either the legislative or executive branch. Moreover it is free to make decisions based upon law and not upon the pressure forced from other groups. The quote "It is vitally important in a democracy that individual judges and the judiciary as a whole are impartial and independent of all external pressures and of each other (Baroness Butler-Sloss–May 2012) visibly condenses this.
Fortunately many argue that the British Judiciary is in essence the most independent of all systems in the world. This is evident due to many reasons. One of which is the constitutional reform act (CRA). The act ensures British Judicial independence as it removes the title of speaker of the House of Lords and also head of the judiciary of England and wales from the office of the Lord Chancellor. This took place when concerns aroused that a member of the judiciary who was also a member of one of the other two branches could not be suitably impartial. Before the CRA was passed, the House of Lords formed some amendments retaining the office of the Lord Chancellor, but significantly reducing his role in judicial affairs. This is not only momentous in the context of Britain but also the European convention of human rights, something the Judicial is responsible for enforcing so that all have the right to a fair trial.
At the same time it can also be disputed that the British Judiciary is impartial, this is subsequently because of the broken relationship from the government. The British judiciary is not influenced by politicians as the judicial system is profoundly independent. Fundamentally the judiciary decides matters before the government on the foundation of facts in accordance with the law. Without any restrictions, improper influences inducements, pressures threats or interferences direct or indirect from any sector or for any reason.
It is highly prominent that the British judiciary contains an element of ‘impartiality’ as it allows the system to be neutral in the affairs in allocates itself with. There are no major personal biases when administering justice and as a result the following rules under the law are respected; Equality, no one exceeds the law and most importantly everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Ultimately the British judiciary is both impartial and independent, both play vital roles in holding each other securely in place, the absence of judicial independence threatens judicial neutrality and in the same way without impartiality, independence cannot be guaranteed.
Moreover, I agree that the British Judiciary is independent as it is assured by the nation and is enshrined in the constitution or the law of Britain. It is essentially the duty of all governmental and various institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary, this is due to the fact that the judiciary has superior jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and has exclusive authority to decide where an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law .
In addition to this the British judiciary is independent because the judiciary cannot successfully support a government act as it would most likely backfire. This is because it would be upgraded to a European court ruling that takes precedence over a British court decision; in essence the judiciary is free from liability.
However it can be argued that the British judiciary is not both impartial and independent. The concept of neutrality can be portrayed as weak due to the understanding that the Judiciary does not include a prodigious deal of Female judges. With the insight that only 23% of the Judges are women it becomes unavoidable that there is gender discrimination within the system.
Another factor concerning the lack of independence and impartiality is the issue surrounding judicial appointments. It can be argued that there is lack of separation of powers relating to the appointments as the Lord Chancellor still manages a magnitude of power. This illustrates how his influence in the appointment can be unfair as it deprives the ideology behind neutral and independent nomination. Essentially judicial appointments were made by the Lord chancellor and monarch however in the modern age the judiciary cannot run as effectively if it fulfilled its old system and it must appear more transparent to aid the Judiciary with distinctive impartiality and independence.
Similarly to this its profoundly comprehendible that despite the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) statistics exclaim that most of the senior judges are white middle class men with attainment of education from ‘Oxbridge’ This ultimately elucidates a separation of powers and goes against the promise of "more diverse judiciary" made by the JAC.
From the information I have gathered I can gain the understanding that the British Judiciary is both impartial and independent as it is engraved in the constitution that the government has to respect the independence of the judiciary, similarly the most prominent factor elucidating this is that there is no major link between politics and the judiciary hence the judiciary can guarantee equal justice to all, judges and juries are free from influence and can make fair and honest decisions about cases subsequently creating a far more efficient system that works for the nation as a whole. Ultimately decisions can be reached without fear of retaliation of other groups or special interests. Despite the fact that the judiciary abstains its imperfections that deprive it of complete independence and neutrality, such as the factor consisting of lack of separation of powers’ and influence within the political system, there is major transmogrification that suggests the judicial system is becoming more transparent. The JAC announced that 8% of the people recommended for judicial jobs last year were black or Asian and correspondingly 156 new women were chosen for appointment under the new system. The British judiciary ultimately proves to be an efficient and momentous system that works, it does so by being both impartial and independent.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The judiciary is the body that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state, they operate under the separation of powers, they do not make laws nor enforce laws but rather they interpret the law and help in its application.…

    • 911 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The independence of the judiciary from the executive and legislative is said to kept by things like their fixed salaries and sub judice rule. Their salaries ‘are paid from the Consolidated Fund’ and aren’t fixed or changeable by Parliament or the government which keeps the judiciary free from political pressure in terms of finance. The sub judice rule is where the MPs in the House of Commons are unable to comment on current or pending cases. This keeps the judiciary free from political interference and prevents prejudice against judicial decisions. This rule is followed by ministers and civil servants too. Judges are said to be kept neutral because they lack politically ‘partisan activity’ as they don’t comment on ‘matters of public policy’ and avoid siding with different party governments. Another way the judiciary has been made increasingly independent and neutral is the changed position of the Lord Chancellor following the ‘2005 Constitutional Reform Act as he was previously the ‘head of the judiciary, the presiding officers of the House of Lords and a member of the Cabinet’. This Act removed his judicial role and transferred it to the Lord Chief Justice while also separating the ‘law lords’ from the House of Lords via the ‘establishment of a new Supreme Court’ in 2009. This again, separates the judiciary from the legislature and executive which enhances independence and neutrality.…

    • 2833 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    “Objective: Examine the potential impact on judicial independence that results from the election of judges versus the appointment of judges.”…

    • 334 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    "Apparently a great many people have forgotten that the framers of our Constitution went to such great effort to create an independent judicial branch that would not be subject to retaliation by either the executive branch or the legislative branch because of some decision made by those judges."said by Sandra Day O'Connor, former associate justice of the supreme court. The judicial branch translates the importance of laws, applies laws to induvial cases, and chooses if laws disregard the constitution. This legal branch is involved the supreme court and other government courts. Even though people argue that the judicial branch has too much power, the Supreme Court should still have the ability to declare laws passed by congress unconstitutional…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In modern Britain, the idea of an independent judiciary remains primarily a term of constitutional rhetoric. Its penumbra, and perhaps even its core, are at best murky. Perhaps the English were so skeptical of theory that they adopted the common law solution—what Tennyson called "[t]hat wilderness of single instances"as a substitute for constitutional analysis. In any event, no general theory of judicial independence exists there…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Laws in Today's Society

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Judicial power is mainly in the control of the Supreme Court as well as other lower…

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    It is essential for them to be independent and impartial for sake of rule of law. The Rule of Law claims that no governmental figure shall be above the law. Keeping judges as unbiased mediators of the law helps this – dicey claimed “equality before the law- equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law. It is vital that the courts serve as an unbiased body independent of the legislature which is made the law, and that they act independently of the executive in interpreting the meaning of laws. Central to the general idea of the rule of law is the specific proposition that it involves a rule of law, rather than the rule of people. From this perspective , judges are seen as subservient to, and merely the instrument of, the law; and the outcome of judicial process is understood as being determined through the straight forward application of legal rules, both statute and precedent, to particular factual situation. In applying those rules, the judge is expected to act in a completely impartial manner, without allowing his personal preferences to affect his decision in any way. A further assumption is that in reaching a decision, the judge is only concern with matters of law and refuses to permit politics, economics and rather non- legal matters to influence his decision. The law is assumed to be distinct from, and superior to, those…

    • 1997 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial independence and neutrality is an important theory - that all judges must be independent from any outside pressures, such as from a political party or cabinet minister. They may well have to sit in judgment on a politician or minister, so it is important to the political system that judges are not dependent on politicians or ministers for pay, promotion or keeping their job. Judges' decisions should be made without any fear of reprisal, however unpopular these decisions might be with a government or a political party.…

    • 515 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    One of the roles of Judiciary is to ‘Defend Civil liberties’ though Judicial review, As one of the Human rights Act is Habeus corpus- the right to a fair trial. Judges can overrule government if they are going beyond Ulta-Vires, judges can decide that other political actors are acting beyond their proper power, in recent years, judges have been increasingly willing to use this power, particularly in relation to ministers, for example if police arrest you without given reason of arrest, they are acting beyond ultra-vires, because you have a right to be given a reason for arrest and can therefore take them to court. However, judges cannot overturn acts of Parliament because of Parliamentary sovereignty unlike in the USA, judges have very far-reaching powers of judicial review because of the existence of a codified constitution. If a law passed by congress goes against the constitution or the bill of rights – the Supreme Court can overrule that law.…

    • 374 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Acts of Parliament

    • 1103 Words
    • 5 Pages

    c) The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the most senior appeal court in the United Kingdom; it deals with all final appeals in civil and criminal cases in the UK with the exception of Scottish criminal cases. It also has ultimate authority in any matters of devolution. In line with the common law system any decision made by The Supreme Court therefore make that decision mandatory in lower courts such as crown courts or high courts.…

    • 1103 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial Branch is established under Article III of the Constitution. It was created to be the weakest of all three branches of government. Each branch has its own characteristics, but what distinguishes this branch from other two is that Judiciary is passive. It cannot act until someone brings case in front of them. Even if some law or act is unconstitutional, courts are powerless to do anything on their own. Contrary to Judiciary, other two branches are active, and have power to attack other subjects.…

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Senate Reparations

    • 2035 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of the United States have important roles in determining the federal distribution of powers and acting as ‘Constitutional guardians’. Both courts also exercise their powers as ultimate appellate courts to safeguard liberal rights and to protect their citizens from arbitrary governmental powers under the rule of law. The quality of these courts is underpinned by the ‘impartiality, integrity, and independence’ of the judges, which depends largely on the framework of judicial appointments.…

    • 2035 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hamilton focuses on three subjects in this paper. First, the process of appointing judges. Second, the tenure which they are to hold their places. Lastly, the judiciary authority among different courts and their relationship (Hamilton p.1). This paper examines the justification for their tenure, meaning the appointment for life under a good behavior. Once comparing the three branches, Hamilton discusses the judiciary as the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution because it does not have the force or the will (Hamilton p.2). He explains force as decisions made by the court that can only be implemented by the executive branch. Will is the fact that courts are not able to interpret the law according to their desires or political views. By making this comparison, Hamilton makes the first important point in this paper, the terms of office should be appointed to life to protect the judiciary from the other stronger branches of government (Hamilton p.2). His second point is regarding the limited constitution that gives enumerated powers to the federal government.…

    • 217 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Judicial review is also practised in states that practise the doctrine of parliament sovereignty such as the United Kingdom. However here, judicial review can only be executed to challenge the legality of the decisions and conducts by public bodies or authorities. Judicial review cannot be done against the law passed by the parliament as the parliament acts as the highest power and governing organ. Similarly, judicial review can be executed on several grounds:…

    • 409 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The concept of judicial independence is as old as constitutionalism itself. Judicial independence is “the capacity of the courts to perform their constitutional function free from actual or apparent dependence upon any person or institutions, including, in particular, the executive arm of government, over which they do not exercise direct control”.…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays