Hubbry Logo
Constitutional Reform Act 2005Constitutional Reform Act 2005Main
Open search
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Community hub
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Constitutional Reform Act 2005[a]
Act of Parliament
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act to make provision for modifying the office of Lord Chancellor, and to make provision relating to the functions of that office; to establish a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and to abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords; to make provision about the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the judicial functions of the President of the Council; to make other provision about the judiciary, their appointment and discipline; and for connected purposes.
Citation2005 c. 4
Introduced byChris Leslie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Commons)
Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lords)
Territorial extent United Kingdom[b]
Dates
Royal assent24 March 2005
Other legislation
Amends
Amended by
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, relevant to UK constitutional law. It provides for a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over the previous appellate jurisdiction of the Law Lords as well as some powers of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and removed the functions of Speaker of the House of Lords and Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales from the office of Lord Chancellor.

Background

[edit]

The office of Lord Chancellor was reformed to remove the ability of the holder to act as both a government minister and a judge, an arrangement that ran contrary to the idea of separation of powers. The reform was motivated by concerns that the historical mixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power might not conform with the requirements of Article 6 (paragraph 1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer who has legislative or executive power is likely not to be considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial. This act ensures that the powers of the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice have limitations on their abilities over the president of the court.[1]

Legislative history

[edit]

The bill was originally introduced in the House of Lords on 24 February 2004 and proposed the following changes:

The bill caused much controversy and the Lords made amendments to it. The most significant of these was the decision not to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor, as, unlike other Secretaries of State in the UK Government, a number of the Lord Chancellor's functions are explicitly defined in law, and transferring these functions to other individuals would have required further legislation.[2] However, although the post was retained, its role in relation to the judiciary is greatly reduced and the office holder is no longer automatically Speaker of the House of Lords because of the Government's announced intention to appoint Lord Chancellors from the House of Commons. Other measures remained generally the same as stated above.

The newly created Cabinet position of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (originally created to wholly replace the Lord Chancellor's executive function) continued, although the holder of that Cabinet post—renamed Secretary of State for Justice in 2007—currently also holds the office of Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor remains the custodian of the Great Seal (the bill as originally written put this into commission).

The bill was approved by both Houses on 21 March 2005, and received Royal Assent on 24 March.

Changes resulting from the act

[edit]

The act contains provisions which reform two institutions and one former office of the United Kingdom. The document is divided into three parts: the first concerns the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor, the second creates and sets the framework for a Supreme Court, and the third regulates the appointment of judges.

Role of the Lord Chancellor

[edit]

Under the new legislation, the role of the Lord Chancellor was redefined. Rather than being the head of the Judiciary in England and Wales, the role of the Lord Chancellor was changed to managing the judiciary system including the Supreme Court, county courts, magistrates' courts, and coroners' courts. In carrying out this duty, the Lord Chancellor is required to address both houses of Parliament and deliver a report as to how he or she has managed the Judiciary system.

The Lord Chief Justice replaces the Lord Chancellor as head of the English and Welsh judiciary and is also responsible for representing the views of the judiciary to the Lord Chancellor and Parliament as a whole.

The law also set out an oath of office for the Lord Chancellor to take. the Oath being: "I, (name), do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible. So help me God."[3]

Supreme Court

[edit]

The establishment of a Supreme Court is the main subject of the act and it had consequences for the House of Lords and the office of Lord Chancellor. The sections contained in Part 3 prescribe that the Supreme Court be composed of 12 judges (s. 23) and that the first judges be the then-current twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (s. 24). The following sections (ss. 26–31) set out the rules for the appointment of future members of the Court. Section 11 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, amended by The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, requires Justices of the Supreme Court to retire at age 70. Justices are appointed by the Monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. On a death, or deselection approved by both houses, its selection commission consisting of the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court (schedule 8) proposes one name to the Lord Chancellor who may reject a name only once per vacancy (since amended to Secretary of State for Justice), having a single veto. Sections 32 to 37 are entitled Terms of Appointment and deal with issues such as tenure, salaries and allowances, resignation and retirement, and pensions. Section 40 additionally sets out that the new Court will assume the jurisdiction of the House of Lords and the jurisdiction in matters of devolution of the Privy Council.

The following sections deal with practical matters such as procedures, staff, and resources of the new Court and the fees of the judges. The Chief Executive of the Supreme Court must prepare an annual report on the work and it must be presented to both Houses of Parliament (s. 51).

Although the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords is abolished, the 2005–06 serving Law Lords kept their judicial office in the new Supreme Court. Newly appointed members of the Court take no peerage, instead bearing the formal title Justice of the Supreme Court. Under the act such judges also have a courtesy title of Lord or Lady, for the expressed purpose of ensuring there is no perceived hierarchy among the JSCs.

The new Supreme Court sits in a separate building from the Houses of Parliament where the mentioned predecessor judicial committee (of the House of Lords) formerly acted as the UK's final court of appeal. After a lengthy survey of suitable sites, including Somerset House, Parliament and the former Lord Chancellor's Department agreed to the Court's installation in Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square, formerly a Crown Court building. Architect Lord Foster was chosen to design the necessary alterations. The building reopened as the Supreme Court on 1 October 2009.

Appointment of judges

[edit]

The third part of the act is about the appointment of judges. In 1991 the Law Society had criticized the old system (the Monarch appointing judges on the advice of the Lord Chancellor), emphasizing its defects and recommending the establishment of an independent body responsible for appointing judges. The Constitutional Reform Act realized the hopes of the Law Society. Section 61 prescribed the creation of the Judicial Appointments Commission, responsible for the appointment of judges for English and Welsh courts. The following sections regulate the structure and the procedures of the Commission.

There are several criteria set out by the law in order for a person to become eligible to sit on the Supreme Court. These are:

  • held high judicial office for a period of at least 2 years,
  • been a qualifying practitioner for a period of at least 15 years,
  • satisfied the judicial-appointment eligibility condition on a 15-year basis, or
  • been a qualifying practitioner for a period of at least 15 years.[4]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4) is an Act of the that reformed the office of , abolished the judicial functions of the , established the of the , and introduced mechanisms to enhance through . Enacted under the Labour government of , the Act addressed longstanding constitutional arrangements by requiring the to possess relevant legal experience and imposing a statutory to uphold , while transferring key judicial administration to the Lord Chief Justice. It created the for to select judges based on merit, reducing direct ministerial involvement, and extended similar provisions to . The , operational from 2009, assumed the apex appellate role previously held by the Lords' Appellate Committee, symbolizing formal detachment of the judiciary from the legislature. A core provision mandates ministers to protect , prohibiting attempts to influence specific decisions. The reforms achieved greater transparency in appointments and codified , aligning with international standards on judicial autonomy, though implementation costs included setup expenses for the estimated at £30 million. Controversies arose during its passage, with critics highlighting the bill's complexity, rushed legislative process, and reliance on party-political accommodations that limited scrutiny of its long-term implications for constitutional balance. Some contended the retained executive elements of the Lord Chancellor's role undermined full separation, potentially fragmenting accountability without addressing broader democratic checks on judicial power.

Historical Context

Traditional Role of the Lord Chancellor and Judiciary

Prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the held a distinctive and ancient office in the United Kingdom's , serving as the nominal head of the for while simultaneously functioning as a senior member of the executive and legislature. This role positioned the as the senior judge, responsible for upholding and the within government circles, often acting as an advocate for the in Cabinet discussions. In judicial administration, the exercised the royal prerogative for appointing judges, making formal recommendations to the monarch after consultations with senior judicial figures such as the Lord Chief Justice; this process covered appointments from judges downward, with the holding significant discretion in selections based on merit and suitability. The office also oversaw judicial discipline, investigating complaints against judges and recommending removals where necessary, thereby maintaining standards of judicial conduct without direct executive interference in individual cases. As head of the judiciary, the presided over the deployment of judicial resources, including the allocation of court sittings and the management of the court system through the Lord Chancellor's Department, which handled administrative support for courts and tribunals. The frequently sat as a in the Appellate Committee of the —the UK's highest domestic court at the time—typically as one of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, blending judicial decision-making with political responsibilities. This integrated role extended to safeguarding against executive pressures, with the expected to resist ministerial encroachments on court matters, a convention reinforced by the office's historical from medieval origins as the monarch's chief and advisor on legal affairs. The position's dual nature thus embodied a pragmatic , where the 's cabinet membership facilitated defense of judicial autonomy, though it relied on personal integrity and constitutional convention rather than statutory separation.

Emerging Concerns Over Separation of Powers

Prior to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the office of exemplified a longstanding in the United Kingdom's unwritten , serving simultaneously as a senior cabinet minister in the executive branch, the presiding officer (Speaker) of the in the legislative branch, and the head of the with the authority to sit as a judge in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the nation's highest court. This arrangement, dating back centuries, allowed the Lord Chancellor to influence judicial appointments, oversee court administration, and participate in appellate decisions while advising the on policy, raising inherent risks of executive encroachment on . Critics argued that such overlap contravened core principles of , originally articulated by to prevent tyranny through mutual checks among branches, as the Lord Chancellor's dual roles could expose judicial processes to political pressures or perceptions thereof. Emerging concerns intensified in the late 1990s and early 2000s amid broader constitutional modernization efforts under the Labour government, including the and devolution settlements, which expanded of executive actions and heightened scrutiny of institutional impartiality. The incorporation of the into domestic law increased litigation against government decisions, amplifying fears that the Lord Chancellor's governmental ties might undermine public confidence in neutral adjudication, particularly as the Appellate Committee's location within blurred the distinction between lawmakers and final arbiters of law. Legal scholars and constitutional commentators, drawing on international benchmarks like those in the and , highlighted how the UK's model lagged in safeguarding judicial autonomy compared to systems with stricter delineations, potentially exposing the to accusations of bias in politically sensitive cases. These issues gained urgency following high-profile judicial challenges to executive policies, such as those involving asylum and , where the fused structure was seen as vulnerable to ministerial influence over appointments and court resourcing. By the early 2000s, parliamentary and academic discourse increasingly viewed the Lord Chancellor's role as an archaic relic incompatible with evolving democratic norms emphasizing and transparency, with reports warning that continued fusion could erode the by fostering perceptions of judicial politicization. The 2003 government announcement to abolish the office outright—later moderated—crystallized these debates, reflecting pre-existing apprehensions that the absence of clear separations risked concentrating power unduly, especially as and obligations demanded demonstrable judicial detachment from the state. Proponents of reform, including figures in the and opposition benches, contended that without disentangling these functions, the UK risked systemic vulnerabilities akin to those critiqued in fused executive-judicial models elsewhere, prioritizing empirical safeguards over historical continuity.

Legislative History

Announcement and White Paper

The constitutional reforms were announced by Prime Minister on 12 June 2003 as part of a , with the government stating its intention to abolish the office of —held by Irvine of Lairg—transfer its responsibilities to a new for Constitutional Affairs (initially Falconer of Thoroton), establish a Supreme Court independent of to replace the House of Lords' Appellate Committee, and create an independent mechanism for judicial appointments to enhance . The announcement emphasized modernizing the constitution to align judicial functions more clearly with democratic accountability, while retaining the Chancellor's role in upholding through a statutory . This sudden disclosure, made without prior detailed consultation, provoked immediate criticism from senior judges and legal figures, who argued it risked politicizing the by subordinating it to an executive department and eroding centuries-old conventions safeguarding impartiality. Lord Irvine resigned shortly thereafter, and Lord Falconer assumed the dual role temporarily, with the government committing to legislate the changes in the forthcoming session. Following the announcement, the Department for Constitutional Affairs published a consultation paper on 14 2003 titled Constitutional : A New Way of Appointing Judges, which outlined proposals for a to select judges based on merit, diversity, and independence from ministerial influence, while inviting responses until 2003. The paper argued that executive dominance in appointments had become outdated, advocating statutory criteria to prioritize judicial quality over political considerations, though it stopped short of a full on the broader reforms. Over 200 responses were received, informing subsequent refinements, but critics noted the document's focus on appointments overlooked deeper risks to the Chancellor's traditional guardianship of the judiciary. Lord Falconer further elaborated on the government's vision in speeches, such as one on 2 December 2003, stressing that the reforms aimed to reinforce public confidence in an impartial without adopting a rigid American-style model, and rejecting calls for a written . These pre-legislative steps laid the groundwork for the Constitutional Reform Bill introduced in February 2004, though the absence of a comprehensive was cited by opponents as evidence of hasty policymaking driven by internal Labour Party dynamics rather than broad consensus.

Parliamentary Scrutiny and Amendments

The Constitutional Reform Bill [HL] received its first reading in the on 23 February 2004, initiating a prolonged period of parliamentary examination due to its profound implications for and . In an unusual procedural step, the Lords established a dedicated Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny, which reported on 14 July 2004 after taking evidence from over 40 witnesses, including judges and constitutional experts. The committee made 83 recommendations, emphasizing the need to retain the historic title of rather than fully abolishing the office, to require the Lord Chancellor to possess relevant legal experience, and to strengthen safeguards for judicial appointments through enhanced consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. The government accepted around two-thirds of these recommendations in its response, leading to substantive amendments during the Lords' committee stage, which spanned multiple sittings from October 2004 onward despite initial government proposals to allocate only select parts to committee and the rest to Grand Committee. Key changes included provisions to maintain the as a distinct role coterminous with the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, with explicit duties to protect under new Section 3, and modifications to the Supreme Court's establishment to ensure its operational independence from , such as separate funding and premises. Opposition peers, particularly Conservatives, successfully pressed amendments reinforcing the as a foundational in what became Section 1 of the Act, underscoring 's insistence on explicit statutory affirmation of constitutional principles amid concerns over executive overreach. Upon transfer to the in early 2005, the Bill faced further scrutiny, with second reading on 21 February 2005 followed by a 17-sitting standing committee that debated over 200 amendments, many originating from the Lords. The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in the reviewed Lords amendments and government proposals, recommending refinements to judicial appointment processes to prioritize merit over diversity quotas, though the government largely upheld its original framework with minor concessions on transparency. and third reading in the incorporated limited additional changes, such as clarifications on the Lord Chancellor's oath to "respect and uphold" the , before returning to the Lords for ping-pong reconciliation, where most Commons alterations were accepted without division by March 2005. This iterative process, totaling over 50 days of debate across both Houses, reflected heightened parliamentary vigilance toward constitutional legislation, contrasting with faster timetables for non-constitutional bills.

Passage and Royal Assent

The Constitutional Reform Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 24 February 2004, following the government's announcement of reforms to enhance judicial independence. It underwent extensive scrutiny, including referral to a select committee, amid concerns over the proposed abolition of the Lord Chancellor's judicial functions and the creation of a new Supreme Court, which some peers argued undermined constitutional conventions without sufficient replacement safeguards. The second reading occurred on 8 March 2004, sparking debates on separation of powers. After committee stage, report stage amendments, and further deliberations, the bill passed its third reading in the Lords on 20 December 2004, incorporating modifications to retain a statutory for the in upholding the . The bill was carried over into the 2004–05 session due to parliamentary timing and introduced in the on 21 December 2004. In the Commons, it advanced through second reading, followed by report stage on 31 January, 1 February, and 1 March 2005, with third reading completed on 1 March 2005; divisions during these stages reflected limited opposition, as the Labour majority supported the core reforms despite Conservative critiques on implementation haste. The Lords then considered Commons amendments, approving them with divisions recorded on 21 March 2005, including votes on provisions for judicial appointments and the Lord Chancellor's duties. The fully amended bill received from Queen Elizabeth II on 24 March 2005, enacting it as the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and marking a pivotal shift in the UK's toward formalized judicial separation from the . This assent followed standard procedure under the royal prerogative, with no ceremonial required for the bill's passage.

Core Provisions

Reformation of the Lord Chancellor's Duties

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 reformed the office of by stripping it of direct judicial authority and reorienting its duties toward executive oversight of the justice system while mandating protection of . Prior to the Act, the held concurrent roles as a senior cabinet minister, presiding officer in the , and de facto head of the judiciary, including the ability to sit as a in appellate cases. These overlapping functions raised concerns about potential executive influence over judicial matters, prompting reforms to enforce clearer . Section 3 of the Act imposed statutory duties on the , other Ministers of , and those responsible for judicial administration to "uphold the continued independence of the ," including a prohibition on seeking to influence specific judicial decisions through privileged access. This shifted the Lord Chancellor's primary judicial oversight role to the Lord Chief Justice, who assumed responsibility for the 's leadership and internal management, as agreed in a concurrent between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. The Act further precluded the Lord Chancellor from exercising any judicial functions, ensuring the office-holder could no longer act as a . A new oath of office, enacted under section 10, required the Lord Chancellor to swear to "respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my other duties with integrity," replacing prior oaths that lacked explicit commitments to judicial autonomy. These provisions extended accountability to all ministers via a general duty to protect judicial independence, addressing historical risks of political interference in judicial processes. While retaining executive functions such as policy on courts and legal aid, the reformed Lord Chancellor became a guardian of systemic judicial integrity rather than an operational judicial leader, with implementation commencing upon the Act's passage on 24 March 2005.

Creation of the UK Supreme Court

Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established the as a distinct to exercise the judicial functions previously held by the Appellate Committee of the . This reform aimed to reinforce the by removing the highest judicial authority from , thereby promoting greater from both legislative and executive influences. The Act specified that the Court would serve as the final court of appeal for civil cases across the and for criminal cases in , , and , while also handling devolution-related matters applicable to the entire . Section 23 of the Act defined the Court's composition, limiting it to a maximum of 12 judges appointed by the , with provisions for an increase through an subject to affirmative parliamentary resolution. These judges, titled Justices of the , include a President and a President, both selected from among the justices to lead the . Qualifications for appointment, outlined in Section 25, require candidates to have held high judicial office for at least two years or to have been qualified practitioners for 15 years. Section 24 provided for continuity by automatically transferring existing Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—previously numbering 12—as the initial justices upon the Court's commencement, with the most senior assuming the roles of President and President. The Act designated the as a superior court of record under Section 40, granting it appellate jurisdiction primarily from the Court of Appeal in , with permissions required for appeals. Schedule 9 to the Act facilitated the transfer of jurisdiction from the and certain functions from the Judicial Committee of the , particularly regarding disputes. Although the legislation received on 24 March 2005, the Court's operational establishment was deferred until infrastructure and procedural rules were prepared, with justices vacating the in August 2009 and the formally opening on 1 October 2009 in the restored . This physical and functional separation underscored the Act's intent to symbolize and enact clearer boundaries between judicial authority and parliamentary proceedings.

Establishment of Judicial Appointments Mechanisms

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 introduced statutory mechanisms to depoliticize judicial selections by shifting primary responsibility from the to independent commissions, aiming to prioritize merit while insulating appointments from direct executive control. Part 4 of the Act, comprising sections 61 to 88 and associated schedules, established the (JAC) as an executive for , with the commission assuming operational duties on 3 April 2006. The JAC's core function is to select candidates for judicial office in specified courts and tribunals, recommending a single meritorious appointee to the , who must accept the recommendation unless providing exceptional, publicly stated reasons for rejection, such as concerns. The JAC consists of 15 commissioners appointed by the on the Lord Chancellor's recommendation, structured to balance judicial expertise and lay representation: two senior judges (the Lord Chief Justice or designee and a judge), three other serving or retired judges, five lay members (including the chair, who must be lay), and five professional members drawn from practicing lawyers. This composition, detailed in Schedule 12, ensures a lay in to foster transparency and , with selections conducted through open competitions emphasizing merit, judicial , and diversity of background without compromising competence criteria. For lower appointments, the JAC applies statutory criteria under section 63, requiring candidates to demonstrate intellectual capacity, personal qualities, and ability to conduct fair hearings. For senior judicial roles, including the President and Deputy President of the , Lord Chief Justice, and heads of divisions, the Act mandates selection commissions under sections 50 to 60 and Schedules 8 to 11, convened specifically for each vacancy and comprising the Lord Chancellor, senior judges (such as the Lord Chief Justice for non- roles), and lay members to mitigate potential biases in high-level picks. These commissions operate similarly to the JAC, recommending one subject to the same acceptance constraints, thereby embedding collegial judicial input while curtailing unilateral ministerial discretion. Parallel provisions extended to devolved jurisdictions: sections 122 to 127 and Schedule 13 created the Judicial Appointments Board for (JABS), an advisory body recommending judicial appointments to the , who consults the Lord President of the before finalizing with the monarch; JABS began operations in 2008 with a comparable merit-focused, independent structure. For , sections 128 to 134 and Schedule 14 established the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission (NIJAC), fully independent in selections for local courts, with recommendations binding on the and deputy First Minister jointly, operational from 2005 to align with the Agreement's impartiality safeguards. These mechanisms collectively formalized merit-based processes, with annual reporting requirements under section 88 to on appointment statistics and diversity outcomes, enabling scrutiny without altering the fundamental criterion of judicial fitness.

Affirmation of the Rule of Law

Section 1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 declares that the legislation does not adversely affect the existing constitutional principle of the or the 's established constitutional role in upholding that principle. This provision serves as a foundational safeguard, ensuring that the Act's structural reforms—such as the removal of the from judicial functions and the establishment of the —align with rather than undermine the , which encompasses government accountability to law, equality before the law, and the . The Act deliberately avoids defining the , relying instead on its pre-existing understanding to preserve continuity amid institutional changes. Complementing Section 1, Section 3 imposes a statutory duty on the , other Crown ministers, and officials responsible for matters relating to the or justice administration to uphold the continued of the . This duty prohibits seeking to influence particular judicial decisions through special access to judges and requires the specifically to have regard to the need for defending against improper pressures, ensuring the receives necessary resources and support, and protecting the public interest in matters concerning the 's operation. These obligations extend to the , , , and relevant international courts, reinforcing the by insulating judicial decision-making from executive interference. The Act further embeds this affirmation through the Lord Chancellor's oath of office under Section 10, which mandates swearing to respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary, and ensure an efficient system for administering justice. This oath, administered upon appointment, formalizes personal accountability and signals to government actors the primacy of legal principles over political expediency. In practice, these measures responded to concerns over potential executive overreach, as evidenced by prior instances where the Lord Chancellor's dual roles blurred separation of powers, thereby aiming to entrench judicial autonomy as essential to lawful governance. The provisions collectively prioritize empirical maintenance of institutional checks, with non-compliance potentially exposing ministers to legal challenge or political scrutiny.

Implementation and Timeline

Transitional Arrangements for the Supreme Court

The of the United Kingdom was established on 1 October 2009, pursuant to the commencement of section 23 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, thereby replacing the Appellate Committee of the as the final court of appeal. The 12 existing Lords of Appeal in Ordinary automatically transferred to become the inaugural Justices of the upon this date, ensuring continuity in judicial expertise without the need for new appointments. The most senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary assumed the role of the first President of the , with the second most senior serving as President, both positions effective immediately upon establishment. Salaries for these initial Justices remained equivalent to those previously held as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and pension entitlements transferred seamlessly under section 37 of the Act. Additionally, the transferred Justices were disqualified from sitting or voting in the , severing their legislative ties to reinforce . Pending appeals and proceedings before the Appellate Committee or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as of 1 October 2009 continued in the as if originally filed there, with prior acts, decisions, or orders retaining full legal effect under section 57 and Schedule 10 of the Act. The final sittings of the Appellate Committee occurred on 30 July 2009, allowing a preparatory period before the 's operational launch. For appeals lodged with the prior to 1 October 2009, Rule 55 of the Supreme Court Rules 2009 provided specific transitional procedures, including adapted filing and procedural requirements to facilitate the shift. These arrangements minimized disruption to the judicial process, preserving institutional knowledge while implementing the Act's aim of structural separation between the and . No alterations to the number of judges or core appellate jurisdiction were required during the transition, with the assuming all functions previously exercised by the Appellate Committee.

Operationalization of Judicial Reforms

The operationalization of the judicial reforms under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) began with the statutory reconfiguration of the 's role, which took effect progressively following on 24 March 2005. The Act transferred the 's judicial functions, including responsibility for the administration of courts in , to the Lord Chief Justice, who was retitled President of the . This shift was formalized through a agreed between the and the Lord Chief Justice in January 2004, which outlined the division of responsibilities, and implemented via secondary legislation such as the Lord Chancellor (Transfer of Functions and Supplementary Provisions) (No. 2) Order 2006. The retained a statutory duty under section 3 of the CRA to protect and the , with ministers required to swear an oath to uphold these principles, effective immediately upon the Act's commencement. A core element of operationalization involved the establishment of the (JAC) for , mandated by sections 61–88 of the CRA to select candidates for judicial office on merit while promoting diversity. The JAC commenced operations on 3 April 2006, assuming responsibility from the for recommending appointments to courts below the Supreme Court level, with the Lord Chancellor retaining veto power only in exceptional cases of . Comprising 15 members—seven lay, five judicial, two professional, and one member—the JAC introduced transparent selection processes, including public competitions and assessments, handling over 1,000 applications in its first year. This marked a departure from the prior informal consultations, aiming to insulate appointments from executive influence while ensuring competence. Judicial discipline mechanisms, outlined in Schedule 14 of the CRA, were operationalized concurrently with the JAC's launch on 3 April , establishing an independent process for investigating complaints against judges in . The could no longer dismiss judges unilaterally; instead, an investigating officer under the Lord Chief Justice's oversight handled complaints, with recommendations for removal referred to for senior judiciary or the for others. The Office for Judicial Complaints, later handling public complaints, became fully operational in 2010, processing initial cases under the new framework from onward, with 1,200 complaints received in the JAC's inaugural year leading to disciplinary actions in select instances. These changes reinforced judicial without compromising tenure security, as removal required a two-thirds parliamentary vote for higher courts. The reforms' implementation included concordats and framework documents to govern executive-judicial relations, such as the 2005 agreement on court administration, which devolved day-to-day management to the judiciary while allocating funding via the . By 2007, these arrangements had processed the first JAC-recommended appointments, including district judges, demonstrating the system's functionality amid initial teething issues like recruitment delays for senior roles. Overall, the phased rollout—prioritizing appointments and discipline before the Supreme Court's 2009 inception—embedded greater structural separation, with empirical reviews noting reduced political involvement in routine judicial matters.

Impacts and Consequences

Strengthening Judicial Independence

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 introduced Section 3, which imposes a statutory duty on the , other Ministers of , and all individuals responsible for matters relating to the or courts to protect the continued of the . This provision explicitly requires these officials to refrain from seeking to influence particular judicial decisions through special access to the , to defend the against unjustified attacks, and to uphold in their actions and public statements. The duty extends to ensuring that judicial appointments, budgets, and operational matters are handled without compromising impartiality, marking the first explicit legislative codification of in the UK's unwritten constitution. A key mechanism for bolstering independence was the establishment of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) under Sections 60-88, which shifted judicial selections from predominantly executive control—previously dominated by the Lord Chancellor—to an independent body comprising lay members, judges, and legal professionals. The JAC, operational from 2006, recommends candidates based on merit alone, with the Lord Chancellor able to reject recommendations only for stated reasons, thereby reducing patronage and political favoritism in appointments. This reform addressed historical concerns over opaque processes, as evidenced by pre-2005 appointments often reflecting ministerial preferences without transparent criteria. The Act further enhanced independence by reconstituting the Lord Chief Justice's role under Sections 10-11, granting the head of the judiciary enhanced conciliar functions, including leadership over court administration and direct consultation with the on judicial matters, bypassing legislative overlaps. Empirical assessments post-implementation, including a 2014 Ministry of Justice review, indicate that these changes have formalized protections, resulting in fewer instances of executive interference and greater judicial autonomy in decision-making. Longitudinal studies, such as those by the UCL Constitution Unit, confirm that has strengthened, with diversified appointment politics and statutory safeguards mitigating risks of politicization despite increased formal scrutiny.

Shifts in Executive-Judicial Dynamics

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 introduced statutory guarantees of , imposing a duty on the and other ministers to protect the from external pressures, including those from the executive branch. This marked a departure from prior arrangements where the , as a Cabinet member, simultaneously headed the and participated in legislative proceedings, creating potential avenues for executive influence over judicial matters. By explicitly requiring ministers to "have regard to the need to protect [judicial] independence," the Act formalized protections against executive interference, shifting dynamics toward a more insulated . Central to these shifts was the abolition of the 's judicial headship, transferred to the Lord Chief Justice, and the creation of the (JAC) in 2006, which curtailed direct ministerial discretion in senior appointments. Previously, the appointed judges with minimal formal checks, but the JAC's merit-based process, involving independent commissioners, reduced executive dominance, though the retains veto power over recommendations. These mechanisms fostered a perception of diminished executive sway, evidenced by post-reform data showing sustained judicial tenure stability and fewer instances of overt political appointments. The establishment of the UK Supreme Court in 2009 further accentuated these changes by physically and institutionally separating the highest appellate body from , eliminating the Law Lords' dual legislative-judicial roles that had blurred lines with the executive-influenced legislature. This separation has manifested in heightened executive , as the has adjudicated constitutional challenges to government actions with greater autonomy, such as rulings on ministerial powers without concurrent parliamentary membership. Post-2009 evaluations indicate a more formalized, albeit occasionally tense, interplay, where executive policies face robust judicial unencumbered by prior affiliations, though critics argue this has occasionally strained relations without proportional mechanisms for judges themselves.

Effects on Case Law and Precedent

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 codified the precedential status of decisions in sections 40 and 41, stipulating that such rulings bind all lower courts in the while leaving the unbound by its own prior decisions or those of the Appellate Committee of the . This statutory framework preserved the pre-existing doctrine of stare decisis, under which the had operated since the 1966 , allowing departure from only for compelling reasons such as legal error, societal change, or procedural unfairness. The Act's explanatory notes explicitly affirm continuity, treating judgments as equivalent to those of the for precedential purposes, thereby avoiding disruption to established . In practice, the Supreme Court, operational since 1 October 2009, has adhered to this flexible approach without evidence of systematically increased or decreased departures from precedent attributable to the Act. It regards itself as the institutional successor to the House of Lords Appellate Committee, routinely applying the 1966 Practice Statement in overrulings, as seen in cases like R v Jogee UKSC 8, where long-standing joint enterprise liability precedent from R v Powell UKHL 4 and R v Rahman UKHL 45 was overturned due to perceived analytical flaws, mirroring pre-2005 House of Lords methodology. Similarly, in Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte International Sporting Club (London) Ltd EWHC 2279 (Admin), the court affirmed restraint in departing from precedent absent strong justification, consistent with historical caution. Academic analysis confirms no fundamental shift in the doctrine post-reform, with the Supreme Court's rate of overrulings—approximately 1-2% of cases involving prior authority—aligning closely with House of Lords patterns from 1966 to 2009. The structural separation of the from under the Act has indirectly bolstered the perceived authority of Supreme Court by insulating it from legislative influence, potentially fostering greater confidence in evolutionary adaptation to contemporary issues without political reprisal. However, critics argue this independence risks judicial overreach in reinterpreting , as evidenced by debates over cases like Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the UKSC 5, where the court's expansive reading of precedents challenged executive action, though such instances reflect broader trends predating 2005 rather than Act-induced changes. Empirical reviews, including parliamentary scrutiny, find no quantifiable alteration in stability or volume attributable to the reforms, with the Supreme Court handling around 80-100 cases annually, many affirming rather than overturning prior authority.

Controversies and Criticisms

Erosion of Traditional Constitutional Balances

Critics of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 contend that its structural reforms disrupted the UK's longstanding constitutional equilibrium, characterized by a partial and judicial deference to . Prior to the Act, the Appellate Committee of the integrated judicial decision-making within the legislative branch, allowing Law Lords to participate in debates while maintaining restraint on reviewing primary ; this arrangement fostered political accountability and moderated potential judicial-executive tensions through shared institutional norms. The Act's creation of an independent , operational from 1 October 2009, severed this link, formalizing a stricter akin to models in codified constitutions, which some argue imported adversarial dynamics absent in the UK's flexible, convention-based system. This shift, opponents claim, eroded traditional balances by elevating judicial authority without equivalent restraints, enabling the judiciary to encroach on policy domains historically reserved for elected branches. The establishment of the under section 61 reduced the Lord Chancellor's direct role in selections—previously a check blending executive insight with merit—replacing it with a commission-dominated process perceived as insulating judges from political realities and favoring elite legal networks. Conservative analysts have highlighted how such changes contributed to "judicial overreach," citing post-2005 expansions in that scrutinize executive prerogatives more aggressively, as in R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019), where the ruled unlawful, arguably substituting judicial judgment for parliamentary resolution. These developments, while affirming rule-of-law principles under section 1 of the Act, are faulted for tilting causal dynamics away from Parliament's ultimate toward unelected adjudication, potentially incentivizing courts to interpret constitutional conventions in ways that constrain democratic majorities. Furthermore, the reforms' emphasis on —evident in the Lord Chancellor's diminished guardianship role and the Supreme Court's distinct identity—has been linked to resource strains and perceptual imbalances, where enhanced judicial insulation correlates with bolder interventions in areas like and disputes. Think tanks aligned with parliamentary primacy, such as , argue this erosion manifests in a creeping "judicialisation" of politics, where structural detachment from legislative oversight diminishes the self-correcting mechanisms of the pre-2005 era, such as informal consultations between Law Lords and peers. While proponents counter that the Act merely clarified existing separations without altering sovereignty's legal core, empirical patterns in case volumes and high-profile rulings suggest a causal shift toward judicial preeminence, prompting calls for recalibration to restore equilibrium.

Expansion of Unelected Judicial Power

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 formalized the separation of the from the legislative and executive branches by establishing the UK Supreme Court, which assumed the appellate functions previously exercised by the ' Appellate Committee, effective October 1, 2009. This structural reform ended the practice of Law Lords participating in parliamentary debates, insulating senior judges from direct legislative influence and enhancing their institutional independence. Critics contend that these changes expanded the authority of unelected judges by reducing mechanisms for inter-branch dialogue and accountability, potentially enabling greater judicial scrutiny of democratic decisions. Prior to the Act, the of Law Lords provided informal checks through exposure to parliamentary dynamics, whereas the new framework prioritizes judicial autonomy, formalized in the Lord Chief Justice's expanded governance role and a more bureaucratic appointments process via independent commissions. The Act's Section 1, affirming the , has been invoked in cases such as Privacy International (2019), where the questioned ouster clauses intended by Parliament to limit , illustrating how enhanced independence may erode legislative supremacy. This shift has fueled concerns over judicial overreach, particularly in high-profile rulings post-2009, such as R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019), where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the of unlawful, a decision some attribute to the Act's of a more assertive court insulated from political repercussions. Policy analyses argue that diminished executive discretion in senior appointments—replaced by selection panels—risks entrenching judges inclined toward expansive interpretations of their role, without corresponding democratic safeguards. Empirical observations note increased inter-branch tensions, including public criticisms from former Geoffrey Cox of the Court's "expansionary tendencies," linking the reforms to a lack of external beyond passive transparency measures like annual reports. Proponents of the reforms maintain that such independence upholds the against executive overreach, but detractors, drawing on pre-2005 balances, highlight the causal risk of unelected power incrementally supplanting elected authority, as evidenced by the judiciary's growing involvement in constitutional questions traditionally reserved for . No statutory reversal of these dynamics has occurred, though proposals include restoring Lord Chancellor veto power over appointments to realign incentives toward restraint.

Resource and Funding Challenges Post-Reform

Following the establishment of the on 1 October 2009 under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, its funding model—primarily through allocations from the (MoJ)—prompted early concerns about institutional independence. , the court's first President, stated in February 2011 that the arrangements "do not satisfactorily guarantee our institutional independence," as the court remained "dependent on the for funding" and required periodic requests to for resources. This dependency arose despite initial government efforts to establish a semi-independent funding stream via fees and efficiencies, which proved insufficient to insulate the court from executive budgetary decisions. These issues intensified amid the post-2010 measures, which imposed significant cuts on the MoJ budget. Resource departmental expenditure limits (DEL) for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), encompassing higher courts including the , fell by approximately 30% in real terms between 2010–11 and 2015–16. Capital funding across the MoJ, critical for court infrastructure and IT upgrades post-reform, was slashed by 70% during the early 2010s, contributing to deferred maintenance and operational inefficiencies in the newly separated judicial system. Overall public funding for justice in declined by 22.4% in real per-person terms from 2009–10 to recent years, exacerbating strains on a restructured for greater yet reliant on executive grants. The resource constraints manifested in tangible operational challenges, including judicial recruitment difficulties due to salary freezes and pension reforms implemented from onward, which deterred applicants amid rising caseloads. By , over 239 courts had closed since , leading to increased travel burdens for litigants and delays in hearings, while HMCTS staff reductions compounded backlogs in appellate processes. For the , these pressures prompted ongoing fee reforms; a 2024 consultation sought to simplify and raise fees to generate additional income, reflecting persistent shortfalls in covering operational costs beyond allocations. Critics, including judicial leaders, argued that such vulnerabilities undermined the Act's aim of bolstering judicial separation, as resource dependence risked subtle executive leverage over case prioritization and administrative autonomy. Despite partial recoveries in MoJ spending by 2025—bringing day-to-day outlays to 14% below 2007–08 levels in real terms—the per-person justice budget remained 24% lower, sustaining debates over adequate resourcing for the reformed constitutional framework.

Recent Developments and Reviews

Post-2009 Evaluations and Adjustments

The published a post-legislative assessment of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 in March 2010, shortly after the 's operational launch on October 1, 2009. The concluded that the Act's core objectives—enhancing , clarifying the , and reforming the Lord Chancellor's role—had been largely achieved, with the established on schedule and under budget, attracting approximately 900 weekly visitors and 26,000 monthly website hits to improve public transparency. The assessment affirmed the Judicial Appointments Commission's (JAC) effectiveness since its inception on April 3, 2006, noting it had completed 24 selection exercises and processed over 3,500 applications in 2008-09, while an independent reviewed 103 complaints, upholding 44 fully. Reforms to the Lord Chancellor's office were evaluated as successful, with the role no longer held by a serving and responsibilities concordatted with the Lord Chief Justice to safeguard independence via statutory oath. However, persistent challenges in judicial diversity were highlighted, echoing the Neuberger Review's call for accelerated progress. The Justice Committee conducted subsequent scrutiny in 2010-11, broadly endorsing the Ministry's findings but recommending refinements to JAC processes for greater efficiency and further diversity initiatives, while cautioning against undermining the executive's role in senior appointments. In response, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 amended sections of the 2005 Act to advance diversity, introducing a statutory tie-breaker mechanism allowing the to prioritize diversity in cases of equal merit among candidates, alongside enhanced reporting requirements on appointment demographics. Later evaluations, such as a 2019 analysis of the Supreme Court's first decade, credited the reforms with formalizing judicial detachment from but noted ongoing debates over resource constraints and perceived encroachments on policy domains, though empirical data showed consistent caseload management without systemic overload. No major structural reversals occurred, with adjustments emphasizing operational tweaks rather than wholesale revision, reflecting broad institutional acceptance tempered by incremental improvements in and representation.

Contemporary Debates on Appointments and Independence

Following the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which established the (JAC) to recommend candidates for senior judicial roles including the Supreme Court, ongoing debates have focused on whether the process sufficiently insulates appointments from executive influence while maintaining accountability to democratic institutions. The JAC, comprising lay members, judges, and legal professionals, shortlists candidates based on merit, with the required to consult the Lord Chief Justice before accepting or rejecting recommendations; rejections must be justified and cannot be based on the candidate's judicial decisions. This framework aimed to reduce pre-2005 reliance on informal consultations, yet critics argue it retains subtle ministerial leverage, as evidenced by rare but notable instances where the has sought alternatives, prompting questions about transparency and consistency. A key contention in recent discourse involves balancing independence with mechanisms for public and parliamentary scrutiny, particularly for Supreme Court justices whose rulings increasingly intersect with policy areas like and executive prerogative. In February 2025, legal scholar Max Taylor proposed expanding Parliament's role in appointments, drawing parallels to the Comptroller and Auditor General process, where a select conducts pre-appointment hearings to assess suitability without power, arguing this would enhance legitimacy amid perceptions of judicial overreach in cases such as the 2019 ruling. Supporters of , including some Conservative commentators, contend that the current opaque elements risk entrenching an ideologically uniform , as appointment data from 2020–2025 shows limited ideological diversity despite efforts to prioritize "merit with diversity," with only incremental increases in non-traditional backgrounds among senior judges. Opponents, including judicial bodies, warn that such changes could politicize selections, akin to U.S. confirmations, undermining the Act's core objective of depoliticization. Political rhetoric has intensified scrutiny, with ministerial criticisms of specific rulings—often on migration policy—prompting accusations of eroding public confidence in judicial impartiality. In October 2025, former minister Robert Jenrick's statements questioning the validity of rulings against government deportation efforts drew rebuke from the Law Society of Scotland, which asserted no legal basis existed for such challenges and that they risked broader attacks on the . Similarly, Richard Hermer in April 2025 highlighted personal attacks on judges as threats to the , citing a 2022 parliamentary inquiry that found some ministerial responses to adverse decisions failed statutory duties under the Act to uphold independence. A 2022 House of Lords report documented over 100 instances of media and political hostility toward judges since 2016, linking it to post-reform expansions in scope, though defenders attribute tensions to the Act's success in empowering courts against executive actions rather than inherent bias. These debates underscore unresolved tensions: empirical analyses of appointment outcomes indicate high continuation of judicial precedents favoring restraint, yet case volumes challenging executive decisions rose 25% from 2010 to 2020, fueling arguments for recalibrating the JAC's criteria to emphasize interpretive neutrality over evolving diversity metrics. Proposals for statutory clarification of "merit" and mandatory parliamentary reporting on rejections remain under discussion in legal circles, with no major legislative changes enacted by October 2025.

References

  1. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4
  2. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/notes
  3. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/part/4
  4. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/part/3
  5. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/3
  6. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/83/8303.htm
  7. https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/52340/html/
  8. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldselect/ldconst/151/15110.htm
  9. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldconst/75/7504.htm
  10. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/
  11. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/40226/the-fall-of-the-lord-chancellor
  12. https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lord-chancellor/
  13. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/lord-chancellor1/
  14. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2023/12/19/sammy-talalay-the-lord-chancellor-the-independence-of-the-judiciary-and-the-rule-of-law/
  15. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/overview/lord-chancellor1/recent-reforms/
  16. https://constitution-unit.com/2022/04/27/the-constitutional-reform-act-2005-led-to-greater-judicial-independence-politicians-and-parliament-must-continue-to-support-it/
  17. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06053/SN06053.pdf
  18. https://www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/fusion-of-powers-uk
  19. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmconst/275/27504.htm
  20. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP05-05/RP05-05.pdf
  21. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP05-06/RP05-06.pdf
  22. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/dec/08/constitution.politics
  23. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldcref/125/12502.htm
  24. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/lddelreg/55/5507.htm
  25. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06371/SN06371.pdf
  26. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a75a7b9ed915d506ee807a9/6488.pdf
  27. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/030/en/04030x--.htm
  28. https://nilq.qub.ac.uk/index.php/nilq/article/view/795/629
  29. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-03-08a.1023.0
  30. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2004-12-20a.1535.7
  31. https://nilq.qub.ac.uk/index.php/nilq/article/download/795/629
  32. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03792/SN03792.pdf
  33. https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Division/864
  34. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/notes/division/2
  35. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5803/ldselect/ldconst/118/11813.htm
  36. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/part/2/crossheading/lord-chancellors-oath
  37. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2020-0107/
  38. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/legislation/uk-parliament-acts/constitutional-reform-act-2005-c4
  39. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseoflords/judicialrole/overview/supremecourt/
  40. https://supremecourt.uk/about-the-court
  41. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/40
  42. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/23
  43. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/25
  44. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/24
  45. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/schedule/9
  46. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/history-of-the-judicial-appointments-commission/
  47. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2019-0223/
  48. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/constitutional-reform/
  49. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/schedule/12
  50. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/about-the-jac/
  51. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/1
  52. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldconst/75/7505.htm
  53. https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/5/1/153/722475
  54. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldconst/83/83.pdf
  55. https://constitution-unit.com/2023/03/31/how-should-the-lord-chancellor-and-law-officers-safeguard-the-rule-of-law-within-government/
  56. https://supremecourt.uk/how-to-appeal/non-portal-pd1
  57. https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-information-office/hoflbpjudicial.pdf
  58. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/notes/division/6
  59. https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/news-by-year/2009/07/from-house-of-lords-to-supreme-court/
  60. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/57
  61. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/the-supreme-court/
  62. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/680/made
  63. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c614340f0b626628aba64/0219.pdf
  64. https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/jac_annual_report_2006-07.pdf
  65. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a74976ced915d0e8e399715/7814.pdf
  66. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/constitutional-reform/
  67. https://sites.google.com/site/thepoliticsteacherorg/the-influence-of-the-supreme-court-on-the-executive-and-parliament
  68. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/02/25/brian-christopher-jones-the-widely-ignored-and-underdeveloped-problem-with-judicial-power/
  69. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/notes/division/6/6/5/2
  70. https://www.innertemple.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/lecture_james_lee.pdf
  71. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9536/CBP-9536.pdf
  72. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=nulr
  73. https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Limits-of-Judicial-Power.pdf
  74. https://capx.co/judicial-overreach-is-throttling-our-democracy
  75. https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Case-for-Reforming-Judicial-Review.pdf
  76. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12400913
  77. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/feb/09/kenneth-clarke-rejects-claim-supreme-court-independence
  78. https://www.headoflegal.com/2011/02/09/lord-phillips-doubts-his-own-independence/
  79. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0217/CDP-2019-0217.pdf
  80. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/justice-spending-england-and-wales
  81. https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/bar-council-justice-short-changed-sept-2024-pdf.html
  82. https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/access-to-justice-can-t-survive-further-budget-cuts-new-report-from-the-bar-council.html
  83. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-fees-in-the-united-kingdom-supreme-court/outcome/reforming-fees-in-the-united-kingdom-supreme-court-consultation-response
  84. https://constitution-unit.com/2011/02/09/funding-arrangements-do-not-%25E2%2580%259Csatisfactorily-guarantee%25E2%2580%259D-the-supreme-court%25E2%2580%2599s-institutional-independence/
  85. https://ifs.org.uk/news/despite-recent-increases-ministry-justice-budget-has-still-not-returned-pre-2010-levels
  86. https://ukscblog.com/crime-and-courts-bill-a-brief-update/
  87. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/01/13/david-stott-ministerial-influence-in-judicial-appointments-taking-back-control/
  88. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/02/19/max-taylor-a-role-for-parliament-in-independent-judicial-appointments-a-comparison-with-the-comptroller-and-auditor-general/
  89. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Judicial-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Strategy-2020-2025-v2.pdf
  90. https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/14/3/752/2404477
  91. https://www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/law-society-news/law-society-calls-out-comments-undermining-judicial-independence/
  92. https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/04/uk-ag-attacks-on-judges-threaten-rule-of-law-and-judicial-independence/
  93. https://www.icdr.co.uk/news/judicial-independence-inquiry-parliamentary-report-finds-ministers-attacks-on-judges-threaten-the-constitution
  94. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1460728x.2017.1345085
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.