SC

Question 1

1) HRA enables them to block leg
For

Answer 1

The Supreme Court can have significant power over the executive under the Human Rights Act 1998, as it can block government policies it deems unlawful. For example, in AV v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2023), the Court ruled the Rwanda deportation policy illegal, preventing the government from implementing it.

This shows the Court can directly restrict elected governments, effectively giving it a ‘quasi-legislative’ role over policy decisions.

Question 2

1) HRA enables them to block leg
Against

Answer 2

The Supreme Court’s power under the Human Rights Act is limited because Parliament and the government can override or disapply the Act.

For example, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 removed Section 3 of the HRA, limiting judges’ ability to interpret legislation compatibly with human rights.

Similarly, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 overturned the Court’s ruling on deportations by disapplying relevant HRA sections, despite a Section 19 statement of incompatibility.

These examples show the executive can bypass the HRA, restricting judicial influence over policy

Question 3

2)unrepresentative
For

Answer 3

The Supreme Court may have too much power because it is unelected and socially unrepresentative. Justices have security of tenure until 75 and are overwhelmingly male, white, Oxbridge-educated, and older, leading to criticisms of bias and lack of democratic accountability.

For example, in 2011 the Court was described as ‘pale, male and stale.’ Tyranny of majority which can cause them to become hesitant when passing radical polciies that challenge the status quo

Question 4

2)unrepresentative
Agaisnt

Answer 4

The Supreme Court does not have excessive power, as it uses judicial review to ensure the executive acts within the law and Parliament’s limits.

This is especially important for secondary legislation, which gets limited scrutiny.

For example, in R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019), the Court ruled Boris Johnson’s five-week prorogation unlawful, restoring Parliament and preventing the executive from bypassing scrutiny. This shows the Court protects parliamentary sovereignty rather than undermining it.

Question 5

3)became too politicized
For

Answer 5

The Supreme Court may have too much power as it appears increasingly politicised, taking on activist, quasi-legislative roles in areas like Brexit, immigration, and national security.

For example, in R (AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2023), the Court blocked the Rwanda deportation policy, prompting former Shadow Justice Minister Robert Jenrick to accuse judges of activism and propose reforms to limit their powers.

This shows the Court can influence policy and public debate without electoral accountability, suggesting its authority may exceed its intended legal role.

Question 6

3)became too politicized
Against

Answer 6

The Supreme Court does not have excessive power, as safeguards ensure neutrality.

Created by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, justices are appointed via the independent Judicial Appointments Commission based on expertise and merit, not politics. Its professional independence allows the Court to uphold statute, constitutional principles, and legal precedent without overstepping its role.

showing that despite political pressures, the process still evaluates legal acumen and judicial temperament.