Why was the Supreme Court built in 2010 and how effective has it been at upholding civil liberties?

The independent woo was introduced in 2010 as a replace custodyt for the polarity of Lords as the top legal philosophy court of justice in the UK, Wales and Northern Ireland. This court has exist approximately 59 million pounds to build and was officially open on 1st October 2009. The enactment of the compulsive woo came about to a lower place the organic Reform lay out 2005 (The unconditional administration Online, 2010) and currently stands as the of import justice in the UK. The main focus of this essay is to examine how The Supreme woo prioritises in the development of the United Kingdom legal philosophy so playing an important task at maintaining fundamental private decentlys. creation the most prominent administration in the UK, it is also vital to contrive the difference between The Supreme romance and the previous House of Lords delegation in which The Supreme act has replaced. The major differences ar visible in terms of power and the impact it has on the British Constitution. The main flat coat The Supreme appeal was built is due to the G all overnments determination on separating the judicial do functions and the legislative duty of the House of Lords, fashioning this the last step in separation of powers. Lord Philip, 2009) say that it has exercise to a situation where the adjudicator are absolutely separated from the Legislature and Parliament. (Raynsford, 2010) claimed that it was right for the Prime attend, prior consultation from the Parliament, to relocate the Ultimate Court of approach (The Supreme Court) from the House of Lords as to avoid confusion between the fictitious character of the House of Lords and the role of the Court of Appeal.In addition, this separation of power avoids the judicial system from holding absolute power, thus discouraging corruption and bias from the judicial system through politics and media. (Casciani, 2010) stated that after the running of the Supreme Court, 12 Law chancellor f rom the House of Lords who were hearing attracts in the Parliament is immediately the Justices of the Supreme Court and are no more partaking in the House of Lords affair. Before the enactment of the Supreme Court, senior judge that are currently in the House of Lords were nlightened to apprehend cases that are of expectant significant to the unexclusive and constitution inside the House of Lords itself (The Supreme Court Online, 2010). They were eligible to vote for the outcome of the cases and sometimes, if any, would have a major sexual relation to personal political interest.However, with a newfangled key reform in place, Parliament allow for be answerable for making law on favour of the electorate whilst the judges from the Supreme Court focus on the frankness of the new law when applied to cases (BBC News, 2010). Lord Falconer, 2009) suggested that this new reform would inflect the judiciary, making it possible for the judiciary to go against the executives decisions (Prime Minister and his Cabinet) Moreover, a leading judge has told BBC that Britains Supreme Court could be more authoritative than the House of Lords department and Lord Neuberger anticipate that the new court of appeal could hold more power than the government (Rozenberg, 2009). It is believed that the pattern of the justices from the Supreme Court will affect the decisions in the lower courts which, in this case, apply to all the courts in the UK (BBC News, 2010).The Supreme Court also underscore on corruption issues involving governing authorities in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, making sure that they abide and commit within the powers granted to them or whether they successfully complete the duty given to the authoritative government in separately state. Lord Neuberger argued that there is a real danger that judges will seize more power than what they currently have (Rozenberg, 2009). Therefore, it is likely that the Supreme Court operates the way the United States Supreme Court functions which, upon the Courts decisions, bind every local law in individual states.For instance, if The Supreme Court decides to change the laws in London (the metropolis city), other cities have to follow. (Lord Philips, 2009) stated that such situation is possible merely is non probable. However, although the Supreme Court has sh testify many advantages so uttermost in America, criticisms have arisen on the decisions made by the Supreme Court claiming that it weakens the Court as an institution where the institution is the ultimate guardian under the Constitution of the rights and liberties (Fraenkel, 1960).Lord Phillips who has commented on various contentious subjects in the past(a) states that there was no reason to why Sharia law could not be used to resolve disputes amongst Muslims provided that the sanctions complied with the laws of England and Wales. Furthermore, he openly defended the gracious Rights Act, handicraft it a crucial constituent of the basic of our fight against terrorism and was amenable for handing down the judgement requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions to clarify with certainty the law on assisted suicide (Mitchell, 2011).Lord Phillips added that the decree of the Human Rights Act by the previous administration was an absolute contribution to the maintenance of the overtop of law in this country and one for which it deserves great credit (Rothwell, 2010). The Human Rights Act 1998 has played its part since the World War on protect civil rights and allo march ong immigrants into the UK where Human Rights are not considered vital in their own country. (Lord Philips, 2009) emphasised on the importance of Human Rights, claiming that the rise and support of terrorism lies in the feelings of discrimination in individuals.Therefore, the need to protect every individuals family members from discrimination in their foster country is vital. However, Charles Clarke criticised the Supreme Court, claiming that t he judiciary do not hold inconsiderable accountability for defending the public and occasionally ignorant about their decisions on how it would affect the public high society (Rothwell, 2010). Lord Philips defended the liberty of The Supreme Court stating that the judiciary is only responsible for applying the laws that have been constitute by Parliament, not creating it (Rothwell, 2010).Another case report in BBC news where the Supreme Court is proven to be impelling in its duty to defend individual rights is shown when two homosexual men who said they faced persecution in their homeland have the right to establishment in the UK as ruled by the Supreme Court. According to the view made by Lord Hope in the case, to restrain a homosexual person to act that his state does not suppress the posture by which to distinct itself is to deny his domestic right to be who he is hence homosexuals are as much entitled to the freedom which are given to the people who are traight (BBC, 2010). Ultimately, this essay has thoroughly examined the historic behind of The Supreme Court, its motive to why the government took a stand on separating the Court of Appeal (The Supreme Court) from the House of Lords as well as the colossal impact it has ranging from the public society to the British Constitution. Even though the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, some disadvantages should be considered such as one stated by Charles Clarke, the previous Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, claiming that the judiciary does not consider the publics well being.I am very conscious that I have failed to spot on a few vital and intriguing points and other matters on this subject. The Supreme Court is credibly to be not perfect and widely opens itself to criticism, Although the Supreme Court is new (2010) it may seem to remain as the highest court of appeal for all UKs domestic cases and criminal cases from Wales, Northern Ireland and England, flourishing as the top court in the UK and uphold its liberty as the vanguard in the case law world (The Supreme Court, 2010).Biblography* Casciani, D., 2010. Supreme Court quashes Treasury terror assets order. Online Available at http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8482630.stm Assessed on may 1st 2011* Fraenkel, O.S., 1960. The Supreme Court and Civil Liberties How the Court has saved the Bill of Rights. p.4.* Mitchell, N., 2011. Pen Portraits Lord Phillips. UKSC Blog. Online Available at http//ukscblog.com/pen-portraits-lord-phillips Assessed on may 1st 2011* Raynsford, N, 2009. Creation of the Supreme Court Online Available at http//www.youtube.com/ agree?v=9ojsQA2W81I Assessed on May 2nd 2011* Rothwell, R., 2010. Lord Phillips defends Human Rights Act. Law SocietyGazette. Online Available at http//www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/lord-phillips-defends-human-rights-act Assessed on April 25th 2011* Rozenberg, J., 2009. Fear over Supreme Court impact. BBC News UK. Online Available at http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8237855.stm Asse ssed on May 2nd 2011* Supreme Court, 2010. Gay asylum seekers from Iran and Cameroon win appeal. BBC News UK. Online Available at Assessed on May 4th 2011* Supreme Court, 2010. Role of the Supreme Court, Online Available at http//www.supremecourt.gov.uk/about/role-of-the-supreme-court.html Assessed on May 4th 2011