The proper functioning of a democratic state is particularly reliant on the unbiased rule of the judiciary system. The judiciary system is comprised of judges and courts that are expected to make decisions on the basis of the law without being hindered by the influence of any authority or political power. The fundamental principle of judiciary independence constitutes the basis of a democratic society and is validated by the UK Constitution.
To ensure the objectivity of courts’ performance, several legal documents have been passed throughout history and restated recently. By protecting the independence of the judiciary bodies in legal documents, the state has imposed some rules of maintaining judiciary independence within the UK Constitution. This paper discusses these rules and evaluates their relevance and sufficiency.
The independence of the judiciary branch of power is an immediate characteristic of a democratic state. In the UK, the legal rules of judiciary independence are covered in the Constitution by declaring the judiciary an independent institution.1 The basic principles have been stated in the Act of Settlement of 1701, which identified that the High Court Judges might continue performing their duties under the conditions of good behaviour.2
Since the level of necessity of citizens’ protection from unlawful actions of the government became more relevant during the past century, another legal document imposing rules for judiciary independence was enacted, namely the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act. This document strengthened the independence of the Lord Counsellor. Thus, the legal rules of judiciary independence imply that judges and courts make their decisions precisely on the basis of law without any influence from the government.
As for the non-legal rules, they are constituted of the rules that exist within the institution of the judiciary and apply to the particular responsibilities within the body of power. In particular, the judge cannot make a sole decision about guilt or innocence; the jury is in charge of declaring such decisions to protect the independence of the judiciary branch of power.3 The representatives of the judiciary system cannot participate in the political life, which preserves their unbiased decision-making and allows for remaining independent from the political powers.
In my opinion, the independence of the judiciary branch of power is essential, and the rules that regulate this principle are sufficient. The regulations of the actions of the representatives of this branch of power impose significant freedoms in their unbiased decision-making but set particular limits as per their duties. In such a manner, the applied rules allow for the separation of courts from legislative and executive powers but ensure that they depend on the law and the interests of the citizens of the state.
In conclusion, regardless of the independence of the judiciary system from the government, this institution is dependent on the law. Therefore, legal rules dictated by the Constitution force the judges to abide by the law but to be independent of governmental influence or other bias. On the other hand, the existence of non-legal rules implies that there are limits to the independence of each constituent of the system, in which all participants perform in connection, thus ensuring objectivity and justice.
Reference List
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. ‘Independence’. Judiciary, 2021.
Footnotes
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. ‘Independence,’ Judiciary, 2021. Web.
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. ‘Independence,’ Judiciary, 2021. Web.
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. ‘Independence,’ Judiciary, 2021. Web.