The Judiciary & the Rule of Law

UK Politics Fundamentals

Chapter 6 · The Judiciary & the Rule of Law

Chapter 5 covered the executive. This chapter covers a genuinely different real branch — the judiciary — and closes with a real, concrete, dated case that ties this entire course's own parliamentary sovereignty thread together directly.

The Real Constitutional Reform Act 2005

Verified directly against real, sourced constitutional law: before 2005, the UK's own final court of appeal was genuinely part of Parliament itself — the Law Lords, sitting within the House of Lords. The real Constitutional Reform Act 2005 changed this structurally, creating a new, independent UK Supreme Court and transferring the Law Lords' own judicial functions to it. Newly appointed justices no longer receive peerages at all.

A Real, Dated Anchor

The new Supreme Court genuinely opened for business on 1 October 2009, composed of 12 real judges — the sitting Lords of Appeal in Ordinary became its own first Justices.

A Real, Direct Parallel to Chapter 5

The same 2005 Act also created the real Judicial Appointments Commission, removing judicial appointments from direct political patronage — precisely the same real structural move Chapter 5's own Northcote-Trevelyan reform made for the civil service over 150 years earlier: replace patronage with an independent, merit-based appointment process.

Dicey's Real Second Contribution: The Rule of Law

A.V. Dicey — already this course's own most-cited real source, for parliamentary sovereignty — made a second, equally influential real contribution in the same 1885 work: the classic formulation of the rule of law.

Supremacy of Regular Law

No arbitrary or discretionary government power — punishment only for breaching real, established law

Equality Before the Law

Real, universal subjection of all classes to one law, administered by the ordinary courts

Common-Law Constitutional Rights

UK constitutional rights arise as a real consequence of case-by-case judicial precedent, not the other way around

An Honest, Real Complication

Modern scholars genuinely regard Dicey's own formulation as "thin" — procedural rather than substantive. It doesn't itself require, for instance, real human-rights protections — a government could satisfy all three of Dicey's own elements while still passing genuinely unjust laws, so long as those laws applied equally and predictably.

Judicial Review — A Real, Concrete Case

Judicial review is the real power of courts to review the legality of government/executive action — genuinely distinct from questioning Parliament's own sovereignty, since courts still can't strike down an actual Act of Parliament. Verified directly against real, sourced legal history, the real 2017 Miller I case shows exactly where that real line sits.

Real, Verified Detail	Fact
What the government tried	Trigger Article 50 (EU withdrawal) via royal prerogative — no parliamentary vote
What the Court ruled	Article 50 required real primary legislation — the government couldn't remove rights Parliament itself had created via the European Communities Act 1972 using prerogative power alone
Real vote & date	8-3 majority, 24 January 2017

Everything This Course Has Covered, in One Real Case

Miller I ties together Chapter 2's own real prerogative powers, Dicey's own real parliamentary sovereignty doctrine (Chapter 1/2 — "ministers cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute"), and this chapter's own judicial review — a single, real, dated 2017 ruling demonstrating the whole framework working together at once.

Hands-On Exercises

Exercise 1

Explain, in your own words, why creating the Judicial Appointments Commission in 2005 is a genuine, structural parallel to Chapter 5's own Northcote-Trevelyan civil-service reform, rather than merely a coincidence of timing.

📄 View solution

Exercise 2

Explain, in your own words, why Dicey's own rule-of-law formulation being called "thin" or "procedural" is a genuine, real limitation, using the chapter's own real example of a government satisfying all three elements while still passing an unjust law.

📄 View solution

Exercise 3

Explain, in your own words, why the real Miller I ruling does not actually contradict parliamentary sovereignty (Dicey's own real doctrine), even though it stopped the government from doing what it wanted.

📄 View solution

Chapter 6 Quick Reference

The real Constitutional Reform Act 2005 created the UK Supreme Court (opened 1 October 2009, 12 judges), separating the judiciary from Parliament
The real Judicial Appointments Commission removed judicial appointments from political patronage — a direct parallel to Chapter 5's Northcote-Trevelyan reform
Dicey's real rule of law doctrine — supremacy of regular law, equality before the law, common-law constitutional rights — honestly "thin"/procedural, not substantive
Judicial review checks executive legality, but can't strike down an actual Act of Parliament
The real 2017 Miller I case (8-3, 24 January 2017) ties this course's entire parliamentary-sovereignty thread together in one real, dated ruling
Chapter 7 turns to a real, structural question this course has touched on repeatedly: devolution to Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland