Agruments AGAINST judicial neutrality still existi
- The judiciary consists of a very narrow social, economic and professional background- mostly male, former QCs from Eton and Oxbridge.
- They tend to come from social backgrounds with a bais against certain groups- women, homosexuals and trade unionistmany Supreme Court judges formerly sat in the House of Lords, which is seen as an incredibly conservative institution- could therefore be influenced by former colleagues.
- The Supreme Court has only 1 female member, out of 12. 11 are Oxbridge graduates.
1 of 2
Arguments FOR judicial neutrality still existing.
- There are many judges who are seen as 'liberal', ushc as Lords Woolf, Hoffman and Bingham.
- Both of the main parties have criticised them for being biased- they cannot be biased both ways and therefore must be neutral.
- The Human Rights Act (1998) has provided the judiciary with increased "ammunition" to be used against the state in civial cases.
- The Belmarsh case and the Mental Health Act show changing attitudes within the judiciary.
- Michael Howard lost many cases over prison reviews and human rights abuses.
- There has recently been a large number of casesin which the individual has been favoured over the state.
2 of 2
Similar Government & Politics resources: