The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Introduction

In order to control the procedure of hearing the appeals, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act came into being, which appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. These include extremely qualified professional judges, who work around the clock and handle the judicial business of the House. Furthermore, the Law Lords, as full Members of the House of Lords, had the power to vote on legislation. However, the Law Lords did not practice such power that often. Prior to the Second World War, each day, the Law Lords heard appeals in the chamber of the House of Lords. At the time when the House of Commons became non existence, the Law Lords shifted their hearings to a close by committee room due to the disturbance during the renovation of the building, forming an Appellate Committee. Moreover, the Appellate Committee proved to be effective, which resulted in a permanent arrangement for the rest of the Appellate Committee's tenure. However, the creation of the Supreme Court took place in 2009, which resulted, in the Law Lords to become the first Justices. On the other hand, the first Justices continue to be Members of the House of Lords, but have to power to vote in the House.

Discussion

In one of the debates of the House of Lords, at the end of 2002, which discussed the reform promoted by the government of Tony Blair to create a Supreme Court in the United Kingdom, Lord Irvine of Lairg Chancellor summarized the uneven process of reform in one sentence. According to the Chancellor, "We are a nation of pragmatists, not theorists, and we go quite frankly for what works”.

The great constitutional reform promoted by Tony Blair, which allowed the creation of the Supreme Court has evolved slowly and seems to be going a long way. Hence, there is an interesting comparison between this reform process that led the Blair government and the arrival of Christopher Columbus to America: Colon, like Blair, he knew where he was going when he sailed, arriving at a destination, which he never knew.

Constitutional Orders and Reforms

It is true that the Labour Party launched toward the conquest of a new constitutional order without clear what was most appropriate for the United Kingdom. According to Timothy Garton Ash, the failure is twofold: to overthrow the old constitutional order, but unable to build a new one. The project lacked continuity and consistency. There were sufficient reasons to downplay: September 11, the invasion of Iraq, the upcoming elections and the risk of confronting public opinion. However, the worst was that Labour clung to the parliamentary system during the discussion of reform. There never was a real desire for change.

However, the results of the reform are enormous: the decentralization of power achieved by establishing a system of division of powers including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the establishment of the independence of the Bank of England, and succeeded in implementing the Freedom of Information Act and the ...