3 ms·

The judiciary isnt supposed to be independent. That is the american system. In the UK all power is held by parliament and extends from parliament.

ben_w 5y ago
The power may flow from parliament, but the judiciary is still (supposed to be) independent: • https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/ https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t... • https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-new-lord-chancellor-the-rt-hon-robert-buckland-qc-mp/ https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-ne...
- mjburgess 5y ago
  That is a different sense of the word "independent" than the American "separation of powers" one.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    Does that make a difference? What I said was they are “supposed to be independent” in the broader context of saying the politicians shouldn’t censure the judges, but might anyway.
sofixa 5y ago
Judicial independence is a mainstay of most democratic countries ( separation of powers in general).
zabzonk 5y ago
Parliament writes the laws - the judiciary interprets & implements them, as in all other democracies that I'm aware of.
M2Ys4U 5y ago
That's not strictly true. It's the Crown that is the font of all power. Parliament legislates as the Crown in Parliament - hence the mace must be present in the chambers while Parliament is sitting and all bills must receive royal assent to become Acts of Parliament. There also exist powers that are (currently) outwith Parliament - namely the royal prerogatives. The court system is similar, courts derive their power from the Crown, although, of course, they are subject to statute passed by Parliament.
michaelt 5y ago
I don't know why this is being downvoted; compared to the US system, the UK system doesn't implement anywhere near the same amount of separation of powers. As you can read about in sources like [1] While judges in the UK have life tenure and aren't allowed to stand for parliament, judges are constitutionally subordnate to parliament - they can't challenge the validity of acts of parliament. And separation of executive and legislature is essentially nonexistent: Getting the support of a majority in parliament makes you the prime minister - and the first-past-the-post system makes it very common that a single party will control a majority of the seats. [1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06053/SN06053.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06...
- mjburgess 5y ago
  To add to your comment, The executive is staffed by members of the lower house. Until recently the head of the courts were from the upper house. So the lower house provided the executive, and the upper provided the courts. Compared to constitutional systems like the US, the UK is basically still in the same position. There is no "constitution" that the legal system forces parliament to adhere to. Our courts simply enforce acts and "send them back" to parliament only when there are inconsistencies. I actually regard the creation of the supreme court here in the UK a pretty silly thing, it should've reminded with the upper house. Either way, it isnt independent in the US sense.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

ben_w 5y ago

The power may flow from parliament, but the judiciary is still (supposed to be) independent: • https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/independence/ https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-t... • https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-new-lord-chancellor-the-rt-hon-robert-buckland-qc-mp/ https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-the-ne...

mjburgess 5y ago
That is a different sense of the word "independent" than the American "separation of powers" one.
- ben_w 5y ago
  Does that make a difference? What I said was they are “supposed to be independent” in the broader context of saying the politicians shouldn’t censure the judges, but might anyway.

sofixa 5y ago

Judicial independence is a mainstay of most democratic countries ( separation of powers in general).

zabzonk 5y ago

Parliament writes the laws - the judiciary interprets & implements them, as in all other democracies that I'm aware of.

M2Ys4U 5y ago

That's not strictly true. It's the Crown that is the font of all power. Parliament legislates as the Crown in Parliament - hence the mace must be present in the chambers while Parliament is sitting and all bills must receive royal assent to become Acts of Parliament. There also exist powers that are (currently) outwith Parliament - namely the royal prerogatives. The court system is similar, courts derive their power from the Crown, although, of course, they are subject to statute passed by Parliament.

michaelt 5y ago

I don't know why this is being downvoted; compared to the US system, the UK system doesn't implement anywhere near the same amount of separation of powers. As you can read about in sources like [1] While judges in the UK have life tenure and aren't allowed to stand for parliament, judges are constitutionally subordnate to parliament - they can't challenge the validity of acts of parliament. And separation of executive and legislature is essentially nonexistent: Getting the support of a majority in parliament makes you the prime minister - and the first-past-the-post system makes it very common that a single party will control a majority of the seats. [1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06053/SN06053.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06...

mjburgess 5y ago
To add to your comment, The executive is staffed by members of the lower house. Until recently the head of the courts were from the upper house. So the lower house provided the executive, and the upper provided the courts. Compared to constitutional systems like the US, the UK is basically still in the same position. There is no "constitution" that the legal system forces parliament to adhere to. Our courts simply enforce acts and "send them back" to parliament only when there are inconsistencies. I actually regard the creation of the supreme court here in the UK a pretty silly thing, it should've reminded with the upper house. Either way, it isnt independent in the US sense.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]