Jump to content

Talk:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.132.139.178 (talk) at 22:00, 19 December 2009 (→Procedure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

When will it come into force?

What exactly must happen for the 2005 law to come into force? Is it really just a matter of waiting for the new building to be ready?

Also, since the current Law Lords will become the justices of the new Supreme Court, will there be any difference in practice from the current situation other than the physical location of the sessions? Or is this merely formalizing the fact that the judicial functions of the House of Lords are now completely separate from its legislative functions? --Jfruh (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When does the building open?

There's a discrepancy between this article (which says it's expected to open in autumn 2009), and Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which gives a date of 2008. Which is correct? 81.158.1.135 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it will open October 1, 2009Trajanis (talk) 09:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updation!!

The last update to this page was on 13 December 2006. No-one seems to have noticed that the article first appears to have not been updated since 2004! Reading on, of course, it is obvious not so, and looking at the page history, but the first sentence needs possible restructuring. Jake95 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

A reminder: supreme court as a concept is lower case, whereas the Supreme Court (i.e. this specific institution) is capitalised, being a proper noun. Mauls 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peerages

"New judges appointed to the Supreme Court after its creation will not receive peerages, nor will they be members of the House of Lords."

Is this true - they are banned from receiving peerages - or will it be no automatic right to a peerage? 89.167.221.3 (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


By definition, in order to become a Law Lord, one must be created a life baron to sit in the House of Lords....however, from October forward, a Supreme Court Justice need not become a lord in order to be seated as a Supreme Court Justice....

Further, I do not believe this is a ban on a Justice being created a peer. Perhaps a Justice, who is subseuqently created a peer (for other reasons of merit), is specifically banned from sitting in the House of Lords (as long as he/she is sitting as a Justice) in order to preserve separation of the legislative and judicial branches of government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has been granted a heraldric badge by the College of Arms. The details are found in this newsletter. Someone with the right level of graphical skill could recreate this for this article :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikigraphist at the Wikipedia Graphic Lab has created one. I just added it to the article. --DWRtalk 20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badge/Emblem image incorrect

The image being used for this article to depict the badge of the Supreme Court is totally wrong. In the wording of the article, and in the description and official image here [1] it is clear that flax is the symbol being used to represent Northern Ireland. However, the uploader has chosen to depict shamrock in the place of flax, for reasons unknown.

I suggest removing the badge from this page unless/until a correct image is sourced. No image is better than a misleading one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.175.22 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence of the new President and Justices of the Supreme Court?

where do the President and other Justices of the new Supreme Court fit into the Table of Precedence? If I were to guess, I would say that the President would be ranked above the "Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales" but below the "Lord Speaker of the House of Lords". I would also imagine that the other Justices of the Supreme Court would rank above the "Master of the Rolls" (but exactly where?)...does anyone know for sure (since the court will be covening in October, this might be settled already)... Trajanis (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current precedence of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary? Is there one? I would assume that, unless a change in the order of precedence is made with the approval of The Queen, the Justices of the Supreme Court would take the same precedence that they currently hold as Law Lords (given that the Supreme Court is a successor institution to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary), with the President of the Supreme Court ranking first (as he already does as Senior Law Lord), and the Deputy President ranking second. Of course, Her Majesty could make a new concession of precedence to recognise the Supreme Court (for instance, by making the President of the Court rank immediately below the Lord Chancellor, or immediately below the Lord Speaker). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.33.30.202 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary currently rank as life Barons...however, now with the creation of the new court to be shortly convened on October 1st 2009 (and the express rule that new justices appointed to such highest court need not hold a peerage (needed to sit in the House of Lords), it would be inappropriate, in my opinion, for (at least) the President of the Supreme Court not to have higher precedence than the Lord Chief Justice of England because the Senior Courts of England will now be subordinate to the new Supreme Court of the UK. The Lord Chief Justice of England now effectviely ranks as the eighth highest position in the land (after the royal family). Therefore, to be logical in the order, the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom should rank higher than that of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (and not merely as a "lowly" life law lord/baron, which position only ranks higher than the Master of the Rolls in the legal world). I would anticipate a royal order/warrant to confirm this Trajanis (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just another note. As I understand, previous to the creation of the new Supreme Court of the UK, the Lord Chief Justice ranked just above the Master of the Rolls but well below the Law Lords.Trajanis (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

by Royal Warrant issued in November 2007, the rank of precedence of the Lord Chief Justice was elevated from its relatively low rank (just below the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) to a very lofty height of just below the newly created Lord Speaker of the House of Lords. Therefore, the Lord Chief Justice is now effectively the 8th highest ranked person in the land (after the Royal family), the seven higher positions being: The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lord High Chancellor, The Archbishop of York, The Prime Minister, The Lord President of the Council, The Speaker of the House of Commons and The Lord Speaker of the House of Lords. I predict that another Royal Warrant will issue soon ranking the newly created President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom just above the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. I also predict that the other Justices of the Supreme Court of the UK will rank at the baronial level (just above the Master of the Rolls) because the present Law Lords rank at that level.Trajanis (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By Royal Warrant gazetted on October 1st, the precedence of the President of the Supreme Court is immediately after the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords, and the precedence of the deputy president, followed by the other justices in order of seniority, is after the Master of the Rolls (but the current deputy president and other justices rank higher as Barons).--189.4.208.67 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Then I predicted correctly with respect to the new ranking of the President of the Supreme Court. However, with respect to the other Justices of the Supreme Court, I thought that they would rank immediately higher than the Master of the Rolls, but it turned out that they rank immediately below him. Nevertheless, the present justices all rank higher as life Barons (as a carry over from their Law Lord days). However, future justices will likely not necessarily be elevated to the life peerage, but will be designated (at least) as Privy Counsellors, so will be high on the table of precedence upon retirement.Trajanis (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Different' badges

The Court has three badges: the one granted by the College of Arms and displayed in the infobox, one similar to that but without the crown, and the quartered circle with the national emblems (used on the carpets). Someone has edited the article to say that there is a fourth badge, in which the omega and crown are coloured dark blue, however to me this really does not seem like a separate badge from the first one, only that the colours have changed slightly. I removed this and set it back to saying three badges, but this has been undone by an unregistered user with no explanation. To avoid a squabble, I'll wait a week to see if people have opinions on it before changing it back again. Johnhousefriday (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badges granted by the College of Arms are governed by the rules of heraldry. As such, a change in the colours (such as the change in the interior of the "Omega symbol"), and a representation of the Crown different from the one officially approved, constitutes a different badge. Especially the question of the colors used in the several elements of a badge/coat of arms uses to be specifically defined in the document granting the Arms. So, if the Court decided to create a different version that departs from the approved one by changing the colour of the Omega or by altering the design of the Crown, it is an altogether different badge, as much as the badge without the Crown is a different badge. --201.33.30.202 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the Royal Arms (the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom) is not displayed is because the Court was granted by the Crown its own, proper, Coat of Arms.--189.4.208.67 (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Tenure?

The article includes neither the words "tenure" nor "term", and does not, as far as I can tell, say how long each justice may sit. Please remedy. Thanks! Mdiamante (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section 33 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 says "A judge of the Supreme Court holds that office during good behaviour, but may be removed from it on the address of both Houses of Parliament." Gabbe (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for creation and opposition

The first couple of paragraphs of the "Reasons for creation and opposition" looks like OR to me. Is there a source to be found here? Can we quote (and name) some notable proponents/opponents? Gabbe (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:This comment is quite old, if this is hasn't been done already then (never mind that bit this has been done today) yes try to find more sources Gabbe, i'd do it myself but the last time i did so was a year ago so my skills a bit rusty. By the way I came here because I was shocked by the newsline on the main page!! Oh my gosh we've got a supreme court like America now! Well not quite, need to go back and read over the article--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lords of appeal

The article says: "It took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords)", but IMHO this should be rephrased to something like "lords of appeal, who are generally Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords)": see Talk:Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords#Lords_of_appeal. Moreover, judgments of the House of Lords begin with "Opinion of the Lords of Appeal", not "Opinion of the Lords of Appeal in ordinary". Apokrif (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should read 'It took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal', just forget about the -in-ordinary bit, because the blanket term for law lords was 'Lords of Appeal' and then 'Lords of Appeal in Ordinary' was a subsiduary of this category... SuperBean (Talk to The Bean) 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

It seems that the article tries to downplay the role of the court in Scottish cases. It hears any civil cases certified by 2 advocates - the article implies that this makes appeals much less likely, but this doesn't seem to be the case, indeed Baroness Hale said that this procedure makes Scottish appeals more frequent than they should be, i.e. that they hear cases that didn't need to be heard. The court also hears Scottish criminal appeals where a devolution issue is raised - in practice a Human Rights issue. I must admit I don't know, but it wouldn't suprise me if most English & Northern Irish criminal cases which reach the Law Lords / Supreme Court involve Human Rights issues, making the differences between jurisdictions academic--PaphlagonianTanner (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do you have a reliable source we could quote describing the distinction in this way? For example, where did Baroness Hale make this statement you mentioned? Gabbe (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She gave a talk at Georgetown Law School about the UK Supreme Court in which she said this. It's available to stream or download in various places. As far as I understand, such a thing could be cited as a source. I'll see if there's any source for my suggestion about English Criminal appeals. Also, I think that the right of appeal in English criminal cases has been criticised, I'll see if there's a source for that. --PaphlagonianTanner (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reference for Lady Hale's talk -
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/webcast/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=473
I found an article here -
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article6818434.ece
which says that another writer has deduced that it was the current Lord Chief Justice of England who at a private meeting opposed the taking of English criminal appeals by the Law Lords. This is perhaps too tenuous to cite. In any case, for all we know, he thinks differently about the Supreme Court. I think that what I'll do is change the tone of the relevant paragraph without changing the facts.--PaphlagonianTanner (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure

Would someone with familiarity with the topic please add information on how cases are heard? The Lords used panels of, if I recall correctly, usually seven judges, with nine serving in extraordinary cases. Also, do the justices wear their robes when either hearing a case or giving their judgment? Cheers! -Rrius (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Law Lords sat in panels of 5, exceptionally 7 and wore lounge suits not robes. Don't know what the current situation is - will ask the next time I meet one of them (good conversational gambit!).82.132.139.178 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=332741662"