The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: UKSupremeCourt.
In October 2009, The Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest court in the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court’s 12 Justices maintain the highest standards set by the Appellate Committee, but are now explicitly separate from both Government and Parliament.
The Court hears appeals on arguable points of law of the greatest public importance, for the whole of the United Kingdom in civil cases, and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases.
Additionally, it hears cases on devolution matters under the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006. This jurisdiction was transferred to the Supreme Court from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The Supreme Court sits in the former Middlesex Guildhall, on the western side of Parliament Square.
This new location is highly symbolic of the United Kingdom’s separation of powers, balancing judiciary and legislature across the open space of Parliament Square, with the other two sides occupied by the executive (the Treasury building) and the church (Westminster Abbey).
The Supreme Court also decides devolution issues, that is issues about whether the devolved executive and legislative authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have acted or propose to act within their powers or have failed to comply with any other duty imposed on them. Devolution cases can reach the Supreme Court in three ways:
- Through a reference from someone who can exercise relevant statutory powers such as the Attorney General, whether or not the issue is the subject of litigation
- Through an appeal from certain higher courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
- Through a reference from certain appellate courts.Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.The Supreme Court was established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.
In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They sat for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.
The impact of Supreme Court decisions extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.
For instance, in their first legal year, the Justices gave landmark rulings on access to legal advice for Scottish suspects, the rights of gay asylum seekers, and the weight to be given to pre-nuptial agreements.
The Supreme Court, as well as being the final court of appeal, plays an important role in the development of United Kingdom law.
As an appeal court, The Supreme Court cannot consider a case unless a relevant order has been made in a lower court.
The Supreme Court:
- is the final court of appeal for all United Kingdom civil cases, and criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland
- hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance
- concentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance
- maintains and develops the role of the highest court in the United Kingdom as a leader in the common law world
The Supreme Court hears appeals from the following courts in each jurisdiction:
England and Wales
- The Court of Appeal, Civil Division
- The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
- (in some limited cases) the High Court
Scotland
- The Court of Session
Click here to download a factual guide to The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Scottish Appeals: Human rights and the Scotland Act 2012 (PDF).
Northern Ireland
- The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
- (in some limited cases) the High Court
The Supreme Court and Europe
Relationship with the European Court of Human Rights
Before the Human Rights Act was passed by Parliament in 1998 it was not possible for an individual in the UK to challenge a decision of a public authority on the grounds that it violated his or her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), within the courts of the UK. Individuals instead had to take their case directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR).
Once the Act came into force on 2 October 2000, individuals could claim a remedy for breaches of their Convention rights in the UK courts. An individual who thinks that his or her Convention rights have not been respected by a decision of a UK court may still bring a claim before the ECtHR, but they must first try their appeal in the UK courts.
It is the duty of all such courts, including the UK Supreme Court, to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR; so far as it is possible to do so. If the court decides it is not possible to interpret legislation so that it is compatible with the Convention it will issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’.
Although a declaration of incompatibility does not place any legal obligation on the government to amend or repeal legislation, it sends a clear message to legislators that they should change the law to make it compatible with the human rights set out in the Convention. In giving effect to rights contained in the ECHR the Court must take account of any decision of the ECtHR in Strasbourg. 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] UKHL 26).
However, in rare circumstances, the Supreme Court has effectively sent issues back to Strasbourg for reconsideration. For example, in 2009 the Court declined to follow a decision of the ECtHR in R v Horncastle. This case raised the question whether there could be a fair trial when a defendant was prosecuted based on evidence given by witnesses who subsequently did not attend the trial in person and therefore were not available to be cross-examined by the defendant.
Lord Philips said that although the requirement to “take into account” the Strasbourg jurisprudence would “normally result” in the domestic court applying principles that are clearly established by the ECtHR. “There will, however, be rare occasions where the domestic court has concerns as to whether a decision of the Strasbourg court sufficiently appreciates or accommodates particular aspects of our domestic process. In such circumstances, it is open to the domestic court to decline to follow the Strasbourg decision, giving reasons for adopting this course”.
In December 2011, the ECtHR gave judgment in Al-Khawaja, a case that raised the same issue as in Horncastle. Commentators noted how the Strasbourg court had evidently taken into consideration the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the latter case, demonstrating the concept of ‘dialogue’ between the two courts.
This concept was also demonstrated in the two courts’ determinations of a string of cases relating to the proportionality test to be applied when local authorities and other social landlords seek to repossess a property that constitutes a person’s home for the purposes of article 8 of the ECHR (see Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45; Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow v Powell [2011] UKSC 8; Kay v UK [2010] ECHR 1322).
References to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Like other final courts, the UKSC is, in the areas of European law in which the United Kingdom has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under the duty imposed by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to ask the CJEU to give preliminary rulings concerning:
- the interpretation of the Treaties; and
- the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;
where such a question is raised in proceedings before it and it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment.
Where an application for permission to appeal raises such a question, the UKSC does not, when considering whether in the light of that question to grant permission or to make a reference to the CJEU, apply a test of whether the question is of general public importance.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a member of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union.
The Supreme Court and the United Kingdom’s legal system. (PDF)
V. https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court.html