3 ms·

This is probably a politically fuelled ruling. Boris Johnson wants to 'appeal to the masses' by making high-visibility rules like these, which sound good on pap

This is probably a politically fuelled ruling. Boris Johnson wants to 'appeal to the masses' by making high-visibility rules like these, which sound good on paper but probably do more harm than good.

HatchedLake721 6y ago
What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending the parliament.
- ricardobayes 6y ago
  I would argue judicial independence would only exist in a scenario if the judge is not human, but a rule-based bot.
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    The judges are definitely human, but their biases are very strongly those of the judicial system, not those of the executive. They're all well-off lawyers, and mostly privately educated, white, and male - so there is an 'establishment' tinge to their viewpoints (though individual judges vary widely). But as far as politics goes, the predominant view is that justice is (and judges are) important, not that the government should have any particular influence. For a small example, there was a recent case where an MP of the governing party (Charlie Elphicke) was convicted of sexual assault. As part of the sentencing process, defendants can submit character references ("He's a hugely charitable, reliable, all round good person and this offence is entirely out of character", that kind of thing) and several Conservative MPs sent them on his behalf, but asked for them to be kept confidential (presumably to avoid political damage at the upcoming election). The judiciary were having none of it. The trial judge released the letters anyway, and the Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal courts) rebuked the MPs for trying to influence the decision of a judge.[0] And this for something (character references) which are pretty mundane. They really do not like bowing to political whims. [0]: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-criminal-trials-are-not-confidential-and-should-be-released-media https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-cr...
buggeryorkshire 6y ago
Boris had nothing to do with this ruling. Why crowbar politics into this discussion?
lawtalkinghuman 6y ago
That is a somewhat remarkable reading of recent events. The UK government has been on something of an anti-judicial kick for the last year or so since the decision in Miller II/Cherry, the prorogations case (and a few other cases that haven't had as much press attention such as the Privacy International case on ouster clauses). They've been talking about "reforming" or "scaling back" the Supreme Court—perhaps simply by renaming it—and talking about how judges have too much power, and are too "political", which somehow they propose to fix by replacing the independent appointment process with a more explicitly political one. Also, if Johnson and the Conservatives wished to bring about the same result, they don't need a Supreme Court decision to do so—they have an 80 seat majority, a large chunk of which come from disaffected Labour voters in the so-called "Northern heartlands" who are perfectly happy to have employment rights improved. The Conservatives could, if they wished, quite easily pass primary legislation to specifically make gig economy or app-based workers have the status of workers under employment law - they'd probably get cross-party support for it. See: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/15/supreme-court-plans-an-attack-on-independent-judicary-says-labour https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/15/supreme-court-pl... https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/government-urged-to-rename-supreme-court-to-curb-judicial-power-/5102594.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/government-urged-to-rename-...
phatfish 6y ago
I agree, the UK is on a fast track to a judiciary corrupted by useless politicians like Johnson. But I have a little more faith than you in the system as it stands currently. There is even a chance of saving it with a little more push back against the behaviour of Johnson and his fellow Conservative party members.

This is probably a politically fuelled ruling. Boris Johnson wants to 'appeal to the masses' by making high-visibility rules like these, which sound good on paper but probably do more harm than good.

HatchedLake721 6y ago

What's Boris has to do with this? It's the Supreme Court's decision, not Cabinet's. The same Supreme court who ruled that Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending the parliament.

ricardobayes 6y ago
I would argue judicial independence would only exist in a scenario if the judge is not human, but a rule-based bot.
- pmyteh 6y ago
  The judges are definitely human, but their biases are very strongly those of the judicial system, not those of the executive. They're all well-off lawyers, and mostly privately educated, white, and male - so there is an 'establishment' tinge to their viewpoints (though individual judges vary widely). But as far as politics goes, the predominant view is that justice is (and judges are) important, not that the government should have any particular influence. For a small example, there was a recent case where an MP of the governing party (Charlie Elphicke) was convicted of sexual assault. As part of the sentencing process, defendants can submit character references ("He's a hugely charitable, reliable, all round good person and this offence is entirely out of character", that kind of thing) and several Conservative MPs sent them on his behalf, but asked for them to be kept confidential (presumably to avoid political damage at the upcoming election). The judiciary were having none of it. The trial judge released the letters anyway, and the Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal courts) rebuked the MPs for trying to influence the decision of a judge.[0] And this for something (character references) which are pretty mundane. They really do not like bowing to political whims. [0]: https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-criminal-trials-are-not-confidential-and-should-be-released-media https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/character-references-cr...

buggeryorkshire 6y ago

Boris had nothing to do with this ruling. Why crowbar politics into this discussion?

lawtalkinghuman 6y ago

That is a somewhat remarkable reading of recent events. The UK government has been on something of an anti-judicial kick for the last year or so since the decision in Miller II/Cherry, the prorogations case (and a few other cases that haven't had as much press attention such as the Privacy International case on ouster clauses). They've been talking about "reforming" or "scaling back" the Supreme Court—perhaps simply by renaming it—and talking about how judges have too much power, and are too "political", which somehow they propose to fix by replacing the independent appointment process with a more explicitly political one. Also, if Johnson and the Conservatives wished to bring about the same result, they don't need a Supreme Court decision to do so—they have an 80 seat majority, a large chunk of which come from disaffected Labour voters in the so-called "Northern heartlands" who are perfectly happy to have employment rights improved. The Conservatives could, if they wished, quite easily pass primary legislation to specifically make gig economy or app-based workers have the status of workers under employment law - they'd probably get cross-party support for it. See: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/15/supreme-court-plans-an-attack-on-independent-judicary-says-labour https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/nov/15/supreme-court-pl... https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/government-urged-to-rename-supreme-court-to-curb-judicial-power-/5102594.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/government-urged-to-rename-...

phatfish 6y ago

I agree, the UK is on a fast track to a judiciary corrupted by useless politicians like Johnson. But I have a little more faith than you in the system as it stands currently. There is even a chance of saving it with a little more push back against the behaviour of Johnson and his fellow Conservative party members.