Law of the Constitution
The constitutional reform act 2005 gives the supreme court of the United kingdom to assume some of the law Lords' powers and a that of the judicial committee of the Privy council and therefore do a way with the speaker functions, head of judiciary as well as the Wales of the office of the lord (Great Britain 2007). Some lawyers have argued that this act is one of the best and has been waited for a long time now by the United Kingdom while other have argued that this act may not bring the separation of powers that is anticipated in the United kingdom. The latter point of argument is based on the fact that the other arms of the government in United Kingdom have not been separated since the executive in particular is still performing various tasks that are overlapping with each other institutions. For this reasons therefore it would not be easy to fully separate the powers of these institutions.
When we look at what the act entails, the act main target is the judiciary. The act intends to make the judiciary independent sine it establishes a new supreme court (Great Britain 2007). The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by a commission that is headed by the president of the Supreme Court. The act also states that the Lords chancellor can only reject the names once which are very important statement in this act. This is particularly important in ensuring separation of powers. The judiciary would be independent and would not be interfered with by the executive through the Lord Chancellor. Most legal experts have argued that the beginning of ensuring accountability by the government and other government agencies is to ensure a proper structure of the judiciary. The fact that this court would take over the jurisdiction in matters pertaining the devolution of Privy Council would improve governance since the interference of the executive would be limited.
The third part of this act that provides provisions for the appointment of judges is also another development that has been elevated by this act (Great Britain 2007). It has been into records that the law society of the United Kingdom has adversely criticized the old system of appointing the judges. In the old system, the Queen appointed the judges under the advice of the Lord Chancellor. This system was not one of the best for United Kingdom because there was possibility of favoritism in the process of appointing the judges. This act therefore created the formation of the judicial appointments commission that would be responsible for the appointment of the judges hence the judges would have to go through a thorough scrutiny before can actually qualify as a judge. These changes presents a form of radical surgery which is important for transparency and accountability within the government offices and gives the judiciary more powers to prosecute than it was before the enactment of this act.
However, the separation of power as defined earlier means more than just making institutions look independent. This act is very important for the United Kingdom and it is a very big move to make the judiciary independent. However, it is very difficult to achieve effective and efficient separation of powers if in the first place we don't have checks and balances. It is not possible to have a complete separation of power if the various arms of the government are to work efficiently since they don't work separately. For example the executive has to bring the laws to parliament to pass the laws and the judiciary must ensure that the laws are enforced.
Some researchers have also argued that the dual functions are the biggest impediments to the full separations of powers and suggest that the separation of powers may not be possible even though the judiciary is given the authority and is now independent. This is because the judiciary would be interpreting the laws that are made by the legislature arm of the government and this could bring a crisis in the constitution since the interpretation may change from time to times. This is possible especially when the judiciary has a lot of powers just like in this case and they do not have a watchdog. In this context, the full separation of power is therefore a dream which is yet to be realized by the United Kingdom.
For the executive to be held accountable for its functions, we have to put in place a proper checks and balances for the executive so that the parliament can scrutinize all the actions of the executive (Great Britain 2007). This is difficult if the executive controls several institutions that are not closely related to each other. It is therefore incorrect to say that the act would ensure separation of power in the United Kingdom. Even though the judiciary is given all these powers, the legislature is responsible for the enactment of laws but the judiciary comes back and interprets the law. For example if the minister act the way he or she feels is the best under the powers based on him or her by legislature the particular minister is prosecuted by the law as was evidenced in R v SSHD ex parte Anderson (Great Britain 2007). In this case it was asserted that a secretary who is exercising the functions of judiciary in fixing the sentence of murderer is a breach of article.
It is evident that the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly interested in the separation of powers with the constitutional reform act. However, so long as the legislature is still mix with the judiciary it will not be possible for the ideal separation of powers because it is not possible to completely separate the executive from the parliament if the prime minister is a member of legislature. The movement to make judiciary independent is the same move that should be used even in the other branches like the legislature. However, most political analysts argue that the removal of the prime minister and the executive from the parliament can not happen current and the government is no ready for that (Great Britain 2007). While the judiciary is capable of being accountable for their actions interference, the legislature can not perform their function as the watchdog of the executive since most of the members of the executive arte in the legislature. This is therefore a stumbling block for the separation of powers in the United Kingdom and has to be removed if they have to separate the various arms of government.
Get BEST Custom Essay Writing Service.
When we look at what the act entails, the act main target is the judiciary. The act intends to make the judiciary independent sine it establishes a new supreme court (Great Britain 2007). The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by a commission that is headed by the president of the Supreme Court. The act also states that the Lords chancellor can only reject the names once which are very important statement in this act. This is particularly important in ensuring separation of powers. The judiciary would be independent and would not be interfered with by the executive through the Lord Chancellor. Most legal experts have argued that the beginning of ensuring accountability by the government and other government agencies is to ensure a proper structure of the judiciary. The fact that this court would take over the jurisdiction in matters pertaining the devolution of Privy Council would improve governance since the interference of the executive would be limited.
The third part of this act that provides provisions for the appointment of judges is also another development that has been elevated by this act (Great Britain 2007). It has been into records that the law society of the United Kingdom has adversely criticized the old system of appointing the judges. In the old system, the Queen appointed the judges under the advice of the Lord Chancellor. This system was not one of the best for United Kingdom because there was possibility of favoritism in the process of appointing the judges. This act therefore created the formation of the judicial appointments commission that would be responsible for the appointment of the judges hence the judges would have to go through a thorough scrutiny before can actually qualify as a judge. These changes presents a form of radical surgery which is important for transparency and accountability within the government offices and gives the judiciary more powers to prosecute than it was before the enactment of this act.
However, the separation of power as defined earlier means more than just making institutions look independent. This act is very important for the United Kingdom and it is a very big move to make the judiciary independent. However, it is very difficult to achieve effective and efficient separation of powers if in the first place we don't have checks and balances. It is not possible to have a complete separation of power if the various arms of the government are to work efficiently since they don't work separately. For example the executive has to bring the laws to parliament to pass the laws and the judiciary must ensure that the laws are enforced.
Some researchers have also argued that the dual functions are the biggest impediments to the full separations of powers and suggest that the separation of powers may not be possible even though the judiciary is given the authority and is now independent. This is because the judiciary would be interpreting the laws that are made by the legislature arm of the government and this could bring a crisis in the constitution since the interpretation may change from time to times. This is possible especially when the judiciary has a lot of powers just like in this case and they do not have a watchdog. In this context, the full separation of power is therefore a dream which is yet to be realized by the United Kingdom.
For the executive to be held accountable for its functions, we have to put in place a proper checks and balances for the executive so that the parliament can scrutinize all the actions of the executive (Great Britain 2007). This is difficult if the executive controls several institutions that are not closely related to each other. It is therefore incorrect to say that the act would ensure separation of power in the United Kingdom. Even though the judiciary is given all these powers, the legislature is responsible for the enactment of laws but the judiciary comes back and interprets the law. For example if the minister act the way he or she feels is the best under the powers based on him or her by legislature the particular minister is prosecuted by the law as was evidenced in R v SSHD ex parte Anderson (Great Britain 2007). In this case it was asserted that a secretary who is exercising the functions of judiciary in fixing the sentence of murderer is a breach of article.
It is evident that the United Kingdom is becoming increasingly interested in the separation of powers with the constitutional reform act. However, so long as the legislature is still mix with the judiciary it will not be possible for the ideal separation of powers because it is not possible to completely separate the executive from the parliament if the prime minister is a member of legislature. The movement to make judiciary independent is the same move that should be used even in the other branches like the legislature. However, most political analysts argue that the removal of the prime minister and the executive from the parliament can not happen current and the government is no ready for that (Great Britain 2007). While the judiciary is capable of being accountable for their actions interference, the legislature can not perform their function as the watchdog of the executive since most of the members of the executive arte in the legislature. This is therefore a stumbling block for the separation of powers in the United Kingdom and has to be removed if they have to separate the various arms of government.
Get BEST Custom Essay Writing Service.
