Supreme Irony
^ TOPSupreme Court
We are to have a Supreme Court. The House of Lords as the ultimate appellate Tribunal will be no more. The same people will now sit as the Supreme Court.
So what's in a name? Does this make any difference? Despite the name, this will not be a Supreme Court of the US variety. Seeking to construe legislation so as to comply with the Human Rights Act or other international obligations, certainly. Where necessary declarations of incompatability. Not however the ability to strike down legislation on constitutional grounds.
^ TOPNo better
The argument that the old House of Lords offends the separation of powers because their Lordships can also function in House of Lords legislative debate is more apparent than real. No one would seriously suppose or suggest that in its judicial function the law lords act as anything other than a truly independent court at the highest level. Certainly since the Pinochet case any law lord would be alive to circumstances which might suggest that he potentially had an interest in a particular case which might make it appropriate for him to decline to be involved. Nor in any event would the Lords approach matters on the basis of what they thought the law ought to be as opposed to what it is. The House of Lords has been a fitting high-calibre ultimate appellate court in English law, with the law lords as one would expect of commendable high level intellect and application. While there is no reason to suppose that the Supreme Court (consisting of essentially the same people) will be any worse, nor is there any reason to suppose it will be any better.
^ TOPNeedless expense
What will be notable is the expense of moving their Lordships. The court will be at the Middlesex Guildhall (unless the campaign by the group Save Britain's Heritage to legally challenge the grant of planning permission should succeed). That expense looks to be considerable. At a time when there is pressure on the legal aid budget it seemed ironic to be spending much needed cash on a cosmetic change of this sort. Particularly when it is not going to improve the quality of Justice offered by the highest level court. A court that everyone was understandably happy with. An odd choice for priority as to where to spend money.
^ TOPSupremely ironic
The more ironic because it is plain that some of the cost of this new court will be met from increased fees to litigants, not just those seeking to appear in the Supreme Court, but across the board. Increases of costs to all litigants, at the same time as a squeeze on legal aid funding. Not exactly the best way to improve access to justice. A Supreme Court is only any use to litigants if they have a realistic option and ability to use the courts in the first place. It will be a supreme irony if the cost of this exercise actually reduces the prospects of litigants being able to enforce their rights so as, in appropriate cases, to take them as far as the Supreme Court. Doctrinal purity in ensuring that the principle of the separation of powers is not infringed would seem to be much less important than improving the practical chances of people being able to enforce their rights.