BRITISH JUDICIARY

British Judiciary



British Judiciary

Introduction

Judges are becoming too politicised in their decision-making, encouraged by a European court of human rights which is progressively shrinking national sovereignty, according to the newest appointment to the UK's Supreme Court. In a critical assessment, of the role of judges in a democracy, which will stir up debate on whether judges, instead of parliament are making law, and the assessment of the extent of Strasbourg court's powers. Jonathan Sumption QC implied that judicial reviews are in danger of trespassing on the proper function of government. A few months ago attorney general, Dominic Grieve QC, appeared before the upper chamber of the ECHR and argued that sensitive issues of social policy such as prisoners' voting rights should be decided by national parliaments. He also said that UK's highest court, said one of the most significant constitutional changes, since the Second World War has been the rise in the political significance of the judiciary, as a result of the increasingly vigorous exercise of its powers of judicial review. Therefore, all issues regarding the effectiveness of British judiciary to operate as an effective check on government after recent reforms will be discussed in detail.

Discussion

The determinative concept of the modern international political order, state sovereignty, is a social principle describing the right of a legitimate government to exercise absolute and final social, political, legal, and economic authority and influence over its citizenry within a geographically defined political territory to the exclusion of other nation-states. Under principles derived from the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, states possess final lawmaking authority within their territory, are vested with the right to self-determination, may pursue their own economic system, and, economic development, and, may provide for their own defence and protection of their citizenry. They may also choose to exploit their own natural resources and develop their unique political, and, social structure as they see fit. Sovereign states are not subject to higher lawmaking authorities or political influence, are treated as equals with other states, and, obligated to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations (Glenn, 2007, 65).

It was a week like no other, one which the proud guardians of British justice will probably wish to forget. Three high-profile events confirmed the existence of a malaise that is threatening the integrity and credibility of the British judiciary. It started with the hearing of an immigration tribunal in Birmingham into the appeal by Sheikh Raed Salah against the Home Secretary's decision to deport him from the UK. That was followed by a public spat between the Home Secretary and the Minister of Justice over the former's call to scrap the Human Rights Act. Things went worse with the visit of the Israeli war crimes suspect, Tzipi Livni, ostensibly at the invitation of Foreign Secretary William Hague. If Justice Minister Kenneth Clarke was right to describe the evidence for scrapping the Human Rights Act as a parody, he would undoubtedly have described the case against Salah as utterly ...