Since the eighteenth century it has been taken for granted by political thinkers that, in a true democracy governed by the rule of law, the government must be separate from the body that makes laws, which must in turn be separate from the judges who enforce the law.
Only if these three functions are kept completely independent each from the other can the state be sure that there are proper checks and balances on the powers of the government and on the activities of the legislature and that all three bodies are as free from corruption as any human institution can be.
In England, of course, there is no constitutional separation of powers. The UK is governed by the party that commands a majority in the legislative assembly, so in theory it can introduce whatever laws it likes; the UK government is restrained not by the vigilance of the legislature but by its desire to be re-elected at the end of its term.
Nor, on the face of it, is the judiciary independent from the government. Until recently the highest court in the land was the House of Lords, which is itself part of the legislature, and the head of the judiciary was the Lord Chancellor, who was a government minister, the Speaker of the House of Lords and who sat in judgment with the Law Lords whenever he wished to do so.
All this changes with the introduction of the Supreme Court which gives the law lords their own court building and a new distinct identity and higher profile - a profile which should be raised further by the fact that there will be much better public access to their proceedings.
In fact, there was always separation between the government and the judges, a separation that was guaranteed by our constitutional conventions and by the prickly independence of the judges themselves, who have always resented anything that smacked of government interference.
Some members of the judiciary were strongly opposed to the introduction of the Supreme Court. This may have been because they felt it an unnecessary extravagance or some have argued that it was foisted on them by Tony Blair, without consultation or discussion with any of the judges.
The Conservatives have not been keen to back it either, complaining about the new court's set-up cost of £100 million and increased running costs of some £10 million per year more than the cost of the old House of Lords.
So is the new Supreme Court an important constitutional change that will endow our courts with a greater sense of independence and a strengthened role in protecting the rights of individuals?
Or is it a costly re-branding of an institution that was working perfectly well and needed no tinkering?
Only time will tell.
LawNet Solicitors help individuals and businesses to find a Solicitor
By sharing the knowledge and expertise of more than 60 independent law firms, making up the LawNet network, we like to think we offer something a little bit different. You won't see any advertising on our website, just an easy-to-use source of legal know-how and access to our experts, when you need it.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Susan_Hallam
