Oct 2009 01

The Not-Supreme Court of the United Kingdom8

Supreme Court

So, with much fanfare (and a bill of £59m so far) the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom opens today. The media are reporting widely that this is the supreme court of appeal for British legal cases. But it isn't.

It's bad enough that the project of housing the Court has been quite so expensive, when the body it replaces simply sat in existing facilities in the House of Lords. It's even worse that the £59m is simply the construction and kitting-out bill, and the annual upkeep of the place will be at least £13.5 million more.

But worst of all is the fact that the "Supreme" Court is a bit of a sham. The proper name should be the Not-Supreme Court, or perhaps the Supreme-ish Court. This is because British law is not in fact supreme in our country, European law is.

Increasingly large numbers of cases, having been appealed to the Law Lords (who are now being replaced by the Supreme-ish Court), are being pursued further to the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice. When it comes to a conflict between Westminster and Strasbourg or Luxembourg, the so-called Supreme Court of the United Kingdon will have to roll over and do as it is told.

Indeed, even on the Supreme Court's own website under the heading 'The Supreme Court and Europe', the institution admits that from the outset it won't be supreme at all:

As the highest court of appeal in the United Kingdom, The Supreme Court will act as the final arbiter on cases. Occasionally, The Court will be called upon to interpret European law and the European Convention on Human Rights as they relate to our domestic laws.

Under European law, member states’ courts should always make their rulings according to principles laid down in relevant decisions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 

If The Supreme Court is considering a case where interpretation of an ECJ decision is unclear, the Justices can refer the question to the ECJ for clarification.  They will then base their own decision on this answer.

In cases relating to the European Convention on Human Rights, it is accepted that no national court should “without strong reason dilute or weaken the effect of the Strasbourg case law” (Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (2004)). 

If human rights principles seem to have been breached, it may be possible to appeal to the European Court after all avenues of appeal in the United Kingdom have been exhausted, or The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this particular case.

Isn't it a bit of mockery to call this the Supreme Court, in part to accentuate its pomp and circumstance and in part to justify its massive budget, when in fact it can be appealed against, over-ruled and dictated to by courts elsewhere?

Related Posts

  • Horse With No Name

    This article appears to have two gripes: financial and semantic.
    Having excellent facilities for the UK’s flagship court is something to be proud about. The logical extension of the “it cost too much” argument is to base our highest court in a park (free, well maintained) and equip everyone with umbrellas. More seriously, good buildings last and over-time the money spent will be seen as an investment.
    As to the semantics, the Supreme Court will be the supreme court IN THE UK. In establishing new legal principles it will, of course, have to reference European law because that forms part of the legal context in which the UK operates.
    The tone of the article suggests a hostility towards the rulings of the ECJ and ECHR. This is too hasty for it suggests that UK law is always ‘better’ simply because it is British. As any lawyer will tell you, EU Law has done a huge amount to develop anti-discrimination law and without the influence of the ECHR, we would be indefinitely detaining people we don’t like without even telling those people why.
    The modern British legal system forms part of an inter-connected web of jurisdictions each of which interact. This process has helped develop our own law and is a million miles away from the borish “UK good, EU bad” approach.

  • http://www.cyclescheap.co.uk Graham Thomas

    A brief point on semantics, Horse with No Name, an investment is defined as “the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.” not as our politicians would like it to mean i.e spending other peoples money on pointless and extravagant status symbols that are designed to reinforce the incompetent elite both here and at the EU politburo.

  • Horse With No Name

    Graham, the trap you’ve fallen into there is to assume that ‘investment’ has a singular meaning when (like most words) it has several.
    As well as meaning ‘the act of putting on robes or vestments’ and ‘an outer layer or covering of an organ or part or organism’ (that’s a new one on me), I used the word as in the following sense:
    ‘the commitment of something other than money (time, energy, or effort) to a project with the expectation of some worthwhile result’
    The worthwhile result in this case, is (a) to formally enshrine separation of powers (usually considered to be hallmark of a healthy constitution) and (b) purpose built, 21st century court facilities rather than a cramped committee room which was difficult to access.

  • Jack

    Very well said Horse With No Name on all points. You have hit the nail on the head with regards to why we need such a court, and why it should be housed in such premises.
    I would add to your argument that the physical relocation of the court from within the Houses of Parliament to a seperate building across the road is a significant and important gesture well worth the money alone.
    This physical (which will I’m sure lead to a more mental) distinction between judiciary and legislature will only strengthen the independance of the court and their ability to challenge the government as they see fit, and as we (the tax payers) would expect them to. I call this a good day for democracy. I thought the Tax Payer’s Alliance was on the side of Tax Payers? Obviously not on this one!
    £13.5m per year is a small price to pay for this.
    I think the bitter pill that the tax payer’s alliance needs to swallow is that spending money, even large sums of money, isn’t always a bad thing.
    Somtimes when you look into these things, instead of starting with the answer and firing off some poor article like this one, you should do some ground work, speak to people – you could even go and speak to some tax payers – and then you might want to write a balanced account of the matter at hand. Not much to ask really is it!

  • http://freedom2choose.info John H Baker (F2C)

    What a load of tripe from your commentators Mark. I watched the ‘swearing in’ of the judges today and all I could think of was our slide to all things American. Why do we need ‘American’ style Mayors or Supreme Courts? Can we, the UK, not ammend any ‘ambiguities’ in our own country using the system we already had, the Law Lords?
    The TPA has every right to ask why our tax money is being waisted on such things. Such things as the Smoking Ban Experiment for example.
    Why don’t we just give up our sovereignty over everything in the UK to the EU and let the ‘ratified’ Lisbon Treaty’ rule over our very existance.
    Thank you Mark for another notch in my education.

  • Paul

    “When it comes to a conflict between Westminster and Strasbourg or Luxembourg, the so-called Supreme Court of the United Kingdon will have to roll over and do as it is told.” This is misleading to say the least when it comes to the ECHR, as the Government cannot in practice be forced to comply with ECHR decisions.
    A case in point is the decision by the ECHR 5 years ago that the current system of banning prisoners from voting was in breach of the Convention. The Government has still not acted to remedy that breach and the courts have done nothing to force them to.

  • Alison Green

    Funny how discussions on government spending are now being determined by whether you’re one of the army of people that makes money from that spending or one of the diminishing number of people that have to pay for it. I detect a strong pro-establishment view in some of the comments, wouldn’t it be interesting to know just who’s on which side of the fence. Oh HWNN I’d like some 21st century facilities myself but I have to earn my daily bread unlike the inhabitants of all the “state of the art” government offices that are springing up everywhere. I consider £5 million should cover it and that it would be a small price for someone else to pay. Any offers?

  • http://www.taxpayersalliance.com Mark Wallace

    Thanks for the comments -
    1) Horse With No Name – it’s not a “logical extension” to say it should be held in a park, it is a reductio ad absurdum, i.e. a ridiculous and illogical extension. When there are already numerous available facilities why is a £59m refurb required?
    2) Horse with No Name – I do think British law is “better” than EU law, because British law is democratically accountable to the people! You seem to be willing to accept oligarchy just because on some things it does stuff you approve of. Benevolent dictatorship is still dictatorship (and rarely benevolent!).
    3) Jack – how is it a “good day for democracy” to enshrine a group of unaccountable individuals explicitly in the hope that you express that they will start to bind a democratically elected Government?
    4) Jack – what is the taxpayers’ benefit to this? If you were to ask taxpayers as you suggest, you’d find that there first view is that they’ve never heard of the Court, and their second view is that BRitish law is being overruled by ECHR and ECJ.
    5) Paul – you’re right that on a few issues the Government has simply disregarded ECHR rulings. However, a key function of the “Supreme” court is to further enforce such judgements. Like most people, I wish the Government ignored European rulings more often, but this new court will make that less likely.