Neutrality of Judiciary
- Created by: Francesca
- Created on: 12-04-14 14:05
View mindmap
- Judicial Neutrality
- How is it maintained?
- 1. The relative 'anonymity' of senior judges
- Traditionally operated away from the public eye
- Until recently, judges rarely spoke out publicly on issues of law or public policy
- Still expected to avoid being drawn into open deference of their rulings, or criticisms of those in government
- 2. Restrictions on political activity
- Judges are not supposed to campaign on behalf of a political party or a pressure group
- Retain the right to vote however their political views or outlook should not become a matter of public record
- 3. Legal Justifications of judgments
- Senior judges generally expected to offer an explanation of how their decision are rooted in law
- Less likely to be guided by personal bias
- Accountability
- Judges are accountable through the right of the party to the proceedings to appeal any judicial decision
- E.g. Against decisions of judges ruling on challenges by citizens to the decisions of public authorities; for example challenges to decisions of NHS Trusts as to the availability of medicines
- Senior judges generally expected to offer an explanation of how their decision are rooted in law
- 4. Training
- Part of a highly trained profession regulated by the Law Society
- Commonly served as barristers for many years before taking to the bench
- Their elevation to the higher ranks would normally reflect a belief that they are able to put any personal bias they might hold to one side when administering justice
- Commonly served as barristers for many years before taking to the bench
- Lengthy legal training
- Although security of tenure makes it difficult to remove judges whose neutrality is open to question
- Additional guidance and training can be required in such cases
- Part of a highly trained profession regulated by the Law Society
- 1. The relative 'anonymity' of senior judges
- The principle that members of the judiciary should avoid allowing their political ideas to affect their decision in cases
- It also implies that judges should not show any systematic bias towards or against any groups in society
- Threats to judicial neutrality
- Narrow social and educational backgrounds of judges
- Most of those appointed to higher tiers of judiciary - privately schooled, Oxbridge-educated, white, middle-class men who are beyond middle age
- 75% of judges are male and 95% are white
- How can judges be truly neutral when their own life-experiences are so very different from most of those who are brought before them?
- There are still very few women or members of ethnic minorities in the senior judiciary.
- Only one woman has ever been appointed to the Supreme Court since its creation
- Creation of Judicial Appointments Commission - done little to address this problem
- Composition of UK Supreme Court - although determined under entirely different procedures, is similarly unrepresentative
- Most of those appointed to higher tiers of judiciary - privately schooled, Oxbridge-educated, white, middle-class men who are beyond middle age
- Politicisation
- Growing public profile
- Greater scrutiny by media and general public
- Due to creation of Supreme Court
- Increased conflict between senior judges and politicians
- Drawn into areas of political controversy in the wake of the Human Rights Act 1998
- The process by which individuals traditionally regarded as being beyond the party political fray are drawn into it
- By requiring judges to rule on the 'merit' of individual pieces of statute law as opposed to their application
- Growing public profile
- Narrow social and educational backgrounds of judges
- Importance
- Essential requirement of the rule of law
- Ensures impartiality in the administration of justice
- Provides protection for the citizen against the power of the state - (as does Judicial Independence)
- How is it maintained?
Similar Government & Politics resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made