Talk:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

John Dyson

It appears from this article that the new justice, to be announced within days (presumably before the dissolution) will be Sir John Dyson, currently a Lord Justice of Appeal. The source is the Times, but it appears to be a blog so I'm not inclined to add it. In any event, I wanted to mention it as something to watch for. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally, major newspaper blogs are A-OK. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Hi, I created an article on the position of Justice itself at what was previously just a redirect. Would be good if other people involved in UKSC generally could have a look and see what you think! Thanks. Johnhousefriday (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Scots

{{CourtsScotland}} is obviously relevant, couldn't get it to go nicely in line under English law so have rearranged things so the rebellious Scots law template is at least reasonably well formatted on my screen. If an alternative formatting is appropriate, suits me. . . dave souza, talk 13:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Style of address

Just a heads up, the judge formerly known as Sir John Dyson, has now been given the title Lord Dyson. [2]. I guess it means that all future Justices will be given the honourific title of Lord.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 08:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting; presumably not appointed under either either the Appealate Jurisdiction Act or Life Peerages Act. What basis is there for such an appointment? Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
For consistency I presume, within the Supreme Court and inline with the titles of judges of other higher courts such as Scotland. This is to be applied to all future Justices as per the press release.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 18:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No problems. With regards to Sir John's (Lord Dyson's) article, I'm not sure whether to style him as Sir John Anthony Dyson, Lord Dyson as it currently is, when I first made the change about his style or John Anthony Dyson, Lord Dyson without the Sir.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The 'Lord Dyson' is evidently a title depending on the holding of a judicial office, very like the Lord Justice in front of his name as a Justice of the Court of Appeal. As Dyson isn't a peer, I'm pretty sure he must keep the title of 'Sir John' except when sitting in the Supreme Court, so I've changed the top of the article slightly. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The press release says they hold that title for life, even though they're not life peers.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 21:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks, I stand corrected by the new footnote. As you say, it's for life. I see it's a courtesy title, rather like the heir apparent of a Duke using a peerage which isn't his as if it were. I suspect that means it would now be wrong to call him 'Sir John'. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem. It does at least provide consistency now with forms of address and titles in the Supreme Court, especially as there is 1 vacant seat and another upon Lord Collins' retirement next year.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, one of the oddities of a courtesy title is that although it's correct for people to use it, it isn't strictly speaking your name. When a courtesy peer gets into the divorce court, his wife's petition is likely to call him "John Seymour, commonly known as Lord Seymour". So I think we can safely leave the 'Sir John' at the beginning of the article. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It seems reasonable.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I wonder whether the "Sir" part is necessary, though, as life peerages articles list their full names, then their designation, but not their previous titles, e.g. Alan Sugar, and the senior judges of Scotland, e.g. Arthur Hamilton, Lord Hamilton even if they aren't life peers, either.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 21:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So far as life peers are concerned, a life peer is a real peer and his or her title is used by right, not by courtesy. I don't know how it is with the titles of Scottish judges, but if the title of 'Lord' depends on an office held (as Lord Justice does) then outside court I imagine they should still be 'Sir John' or 'Dame Vera' – unless, of course, this is another use of a courtesy title. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The press release seems to suggest that they would be able to use it outside of the courtroom setting, i.e. holding the title for life, but perhaps we should leave the "Sir" in for now.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 22:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume it would work the same way as Scottish Lords of Session (i.e. Lord X for all purposes, both official and social). In addition, although it obviously hasn't arisen with Dyson, presumably the same system as Scotland will have to be adopted for the choice of the title - if an SCJ is appointed who has the same surname as an existing SCJ, they clearly can't both have the same name. I suppose it remains to be seen whether they'll be allowed to be Lord Name of Place (as with life peers) or whether they'll have to be simply Lord Place (as with Scottish judges). Proteus (Talk) 21:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

'Not Co-equal'?

What, if anything, is meant by the statement that the Court is not a 'co-equal branch of government'? Apart from the linguistic barbarism (things can be equal or unequal, but not 'co-equal'), I suspect this is a misguided attempt to compare the US and UK systems, with the US system, as so often in Wikipedia, taken as 'standard'. Even if we attempt to fit the UK system of government into the US 3-part model of Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary (which does not even fit the US system exactly, e.g. because the President has legislative as well as executive powers), the UK Supreme Court is independent and 'supreme' in its own sphere of responsibility: namely the interpretation of the law. The difference between the US and UK systems is that in the US the Constitution is deemed to be 'above' all 3 branches of government, and the Supreme Court, as the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution, may therefore find itself in the position of over-ruling the Legislature. 86.181.209.223 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Co-equal" is not a "linguistic barbarism". It is a word that refers to equals. Saying things are "equal branches of government" doesn't mean a whole lot. "Co-equal branches of government" means they are branches of equal rank. To the extent you see the "attempt" as misguided, you are wrong; frankly, you are also wrong that it is just a comparison to the US. The only bit of your suspicion that was correct was that it was a comparison. The very point was along the same lines you are discussing, though. There is, of course, a convention of judicial independence in the UK, but the judiciary is ultimately subservient to Parliament. That is not the case in the US and in most other countries that have written constitutions. Courts in those countries derive their powers and existence from their written constitutions. Frankly, the US is not the best example because only its Supreme Court was created by its constitution. All its inferior courts exist because Congress created them. Germany is a better example. Anyhow, the entire judiciary of the UK owes its existence to Acts of Parliament. In the end, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is subservient to Parliament, but the supreme and constitutional courts of other countries around the world are not subservient to their respective countries' legislatures. That was the point of the language, and it is true. -Rrius (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
On the linguistic point, from Rrius's own account, 'co-equal' just means 'equal', so the addition of 'co' is unnecessary and confusing. I see from a little Googling that there is a precedent for the word 'co-equal' (or presumably its Latin form 'coaequalis') in the definition of the Trinity in the Athenasian Creed, but this does not impress me as a source of clarity! On the substance, Rrius argues that the judiciary is ultimately 'subservient to Parliament' and 'owes its existence' to Acts of Parliament. This seems to me to be overstating the case. The basic function of a legislature is to make laws; the basic function of a judiciary is to apply and interpret them. This is exactly what the UK Parliament and Judiciary do. The fact that the UK Supreme Court does not have the right to strike down statutes (leaving aside European complications) does not make it 'subservient', any more than the fact that a judge would not be allowed to carry out a surgical operation makes judges 'subservient' to surgeons: they are merely doing different jobs. Each is supreme in its own sphere of competence. The judiciary cannot amend statutes, but neither can Parliament overrule judicial decisions on an ad hoc basis. As for the claim that the judiciary owes its existence to Acts of Parliament, historically the existence of the judiciary pre-dates Parliament, but the present composition and powers of the various Courts have been fixed by Acts of Parliament. Again, it is overstating the case to say that the judiciary 'owes its existence' to those Acts, any more than we would say the medical profession owes its existence to Parliament just because it is regulated by various statutes. What really distinguishes the UK system from some others (notably the US), is not that the Judiciary has less power, but that the powers of the Legislature are not limited by an entrenched Constitution which cannot be amended without great difficulty. I would object to any implication that this is somehow an oddity of the UK system. It may put the UK in a minority among nations, but when one contemplates the results of the US system (not least the politicisation of the Supreme Court) it seems to me something we should be grateful for.86.135.2.203 (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It's really interesting really, because the UK runs on a doctirine of Parliamentary supremacy, meaning it's the ultimate maker and taker of laws, however, Lord Phillips, President of the Supreme Court, also stated that if Parliament did the inconceivable, then the Court would have to act equally as inconceivably. See [3]. But de facto, Parliament is supreme.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the statement "the entire judiciary of the UK owes its existence to Acts of Parliament" is that it doesn't tell the whole story. The Supreme Court inherits all the (judicial) powers that the old House of Lords had (and the High Court has lots of common law derived jurisdiction) so its not entirely a creature of statute. The limits of its power are defined by law, but that law is the law as decided on by the judiciary. The Supreme Court could decide that it was able to overrule Parliament and then it would be able to do so. There is no statutory provision that says that the Supreme Court may not do so. Francis Davey (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Although if it tried to do so one would probably be created pretty quickly. (Indeed, Phillips's entire statement sounds like a very hollow threat given that in a stroke Parliament could abolish both his position and the court he heads.) Proteus (Talk) 17:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
But that would end up in a constitutional crisis as Lord Phillips said, and I highly doubt that even Parliament can remove the judiciary at will. In either case, it's a very complicated matter.--Tærkast (Communicate) 19:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

US Supreme Court

When making their court, did England consider at all the US Supreme Court when they went about shaping it? I would imagine reference #6 (Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. Department of Constitutional Affairs. July 2003) has some discussion on that topic if they did consider it, but it's a 404. If they did look to the SCOTUS for at least some ideas it might be worth noting. 68.35.40.154 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I would assume (although I don't know and it's an interesting topic) that little or no attention was paid to SCOTUS when setting up the court. This is likely because of the greatly different role the two courts play (i.e. the US court is, in the first instance, a constitutional court, whilst the UK one is 'just' an appeal court and has absolutely no power to strike down laws).
The two courts are structured very differently (US supreme court judges are elected and highly politicised whereas in the UK, they are appointed on the basis of experience etc. and are discouraged from politicising issues - there was a quote from one of the UK judges in a BBC documentary fairly recently saying that they did not even know each others political beliefs).
They also operate very differently in practice; firstly, because judges are not acting as political agents, the UK court feels comfortable fielding panels of between 3 and 9 judges, never the whole court - whereas in the US it is felt neccessary for the whole court to hear each case. Secondly, the UK court is less strict in having judges 'file' or 'join' opinions and basically just lets everyone present however long or short a judgment as they wish. Other operational differences are the lack of per curiam decisions, and the means of funding (the UK supreme court is self-funded whilst (I'm fairly sure) the US one is federally funded).
So yeah I think that the two courts are essentially the same in name only, and I wouldn't be surprised if Parliament actively avoided drawing comparisons with the US court.
Hope that helps. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd actually be more surprised if they didn't look at the SCOTUS, if only to say "nope we really don't want that." If anyone else knows of sources on this I'd be very much interested. (As a side note, US supreme court justices are chosen in much the same way as UK justices are; they're not elected are, at least officially, apolitical.) 68.35.40.154 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Nominated by the head of the executive and confirmed by the legislature looks "political" from a UK point of view, which is what I think was being referred to. They are certainly not democratically elected by popular vote. Francis Davey (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
The UK Supreme Court does not control its own docket in the same way that SCOTUS does (or at least to the same degree). In criminal cases it is the lower courts that have the final say as to whether cases may be referred up. In civil cases either lower or superior court may chose to give permission. The result is that a lot of cases end up in the Supreme Court which that court might not have chosen to hear. Francis Davey (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It would've been unusual if some international comparisons had not been drawn in during the creation of the UK Supreme Court, but I have no idea why you'd mark out the SCOTUS for particular attention. The UK Supreme Court is, naturally, rather more similar to other Commonwealth courts than a US one. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Move

This article is named 'Supreme Court of the United Kingdom', I believe it has that name because it is referred to in the Consitutional Reform Act 2005 as such, and because it fits in nicely with our other articles on Supreme Courts (e.g Supreme Court of the United States).

The issue is, that virtually nowhere else is the court referred to by this name, the court is referred to on the badge, its website etc. as simply 'The Supreme Court' and in virtually all secondary sources written for international consumption the court is referred to as the 'United Kingdom Supreme Court', somewhat absurdly many of the external links on this article have been written using the 'SCOTUK' formulation but direct to sites which use the more popular and widespread acronym 'UKSC' (which is indeed the acronym which has been adopted as the court's official reference in neutral citations).

I suppose my question is why does WP:COMMONNAME not apply here? Bob House 884 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it at this title for consistency and clarity, although that "United Kingdom Supreme Court" would fall within common name. A lot of the publications on the website also use "The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom", i.e. see at the end of this press summary of a judgement, [4] Also, consider that then the common names of other supreme courts may then also be put into question. We can't call it "The Supreme Court" for obvious reasons, but the United Kingdom Supreme Court redirect here is fine in my opinion. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
"Also, consider that then the common names of other supreme courts may then also be put into question." Er, WP:OTHERCRAP? Not that I feel strongly for/against a move. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I was just trying to point that out, a point which I believe is valid for consistency.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Britannica appears to use "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom". Also, note that "UKSC" can be used as an abbreviation in sources that otherwise say "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom", such as doi:10.1080/03050718.2010.500834 (which admittedly also uses "UK Supreme Court", presumably for brevity). Gabbe (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Supreme Court refers to its self as the "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC)", so to the extent that the reason for proposing the change is that the abbreviation is "UKSC", it is not warranted. What's more, there are more than 17 million Google hits for "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom", but only about 80,500 for "United Kingdom Supreme Court". For what it's worth, the US version is very commonly called the "US Supreme Court" or "United States Supreme Court". -Rrius (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Retirement Age

The infobox. states the mandatory retiring age to be 70; yet, Lord Phillips is 73. Presumably one is a mistake, or am I missing something? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Persons appointed judges prior to the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 may serve until they are 75.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Scottish political row about UKSC jurisdiction

This really needs to be added to the article (eg1). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Only can you find a source which gets the law right? That would be good (if possible). There must be something more scholarly out there - any ideas? Francis Davey (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
eg2 eg3 Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the Scottish courts website says that it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court, when the article on the High Court of Justiciary and this one doesn't really mention it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 11:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Image to Use in the Supreme Court case Info Box

There is a template for an info-box for articles about court cases: Template:Infobox court case. One of the fields is for an image to represent the court.

Currently, all of the British courts use an elaborate version of the Royal Arms: Template:Infobox court case/images.

Since the Supreme Court has its own unique logo, as used in this article, I've suggested in the Talkpage for the images that the same image should be used for the court case infobox: Template talk:Infobox court case

If anyone wants to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox court case, please do so. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

High Court article question

Can anyone answer the High Court article question posted at this link? Thank you in advance. Bo99 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

how do i contac k the couts to do with children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.12.1 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2016

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved; there is clear consensus against the proposed moves, and opponents of the move have pointed to evidence of actual use meeting WP:NATURALDIS. bd2412 T 14:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

– The Press Office of the Registry of the Supreme Court (UKSC) according to the Supreme Court's (UKSC) website [5] simply refers to the Court as "The Supreme Court". The name "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom", in that particular order of words ("of the United Kingdom"), is generally considered more of an (uncommon) "Americanism" in British English, and is otherwise (alongside even such names as "the United Kingdom Supreme Court" and "the UK Supreme Court") largely not used in common language or common speech here in the United Kingdom—here in Britain, outside of formalised, stylised, restricted written legal contexts. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment Given that the main article needs to identify this court as that "of the United Kingdom", and that in other articles such as Brexit and R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union it is necessary to distinguish it from another country's SC (Germany) and as the final court of appeal for the several parts of the UK, this proposal appears on its face to be more pedantic than practical. What supports the surmise that "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom", in "that particular order of words ("of the United Kingdom"), is generally considered more of an (uncommon) "Americanism" in British English"? Wikipedia articles are expected to be read by persons everywhere, including USA, and there may be many diligent law students there, or law practitioners anywhere else, who seek to look at this article for their information, and there may be some journalists, even in any one of the parts of the UK, who also gain useful information from this article. Qexigator (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because no convincing evidence has been provided to show this is an "Americanism." The title "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" is in fact used by the UK government [6]. Additionally, WP:NATURALDIS makes the current title more preferable than using parenthetical disambiguation. Calidum 22:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it's true that not disambiguating certain ambiguous proper names in use is a bit of a "Britishism" (eg, "The Open Championship"), it is also true that (1) we need a disambiguation here, and (2) the current name is the most natural way of doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a natural disambiguation that as Calidum points out has been used officially. Also parallels most of the titles in Category:National supreme courts, and other UK articles such as Parliament of the United Kingdom and Monarchy of the United Kingdom. the wub "?!" 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" does seem to be the, or at least an, official name. See for example the official court rules here, in the title and Rule 3(1), and practice direction no. 1 here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

how many justices?

Some sources say there are 12 SC justices. Other sources ( https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/whos-who.html ) say 11. 149.254.248.117 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I beleive there is a vacancy, but even so the article should refer consistantly to "all 12 Justices", etc. and not be edited up and down each time a vacancy occurs and is filled. cf the article on the House of Commons always refers to 650 members, it isn't edited up and down for every death, resignation, and by-election. It would be appropriate for the infobox and/or introduction to say something like "12 members (currently 1 vacant as of (date))".

I have amended infobox to 12. The Act is quite clear - "The Court consists of 12 judges appointed by Her Majesty by letters patent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.222.179 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Appointment, tenure, and removal of justices (Suggestion)

It would be great if someone knowledgeable could add information to the article that answers the following questions:

  • How long do justices serve? (For life? A certain number of years?)
  • Is there a process for removing justices involuntarily? (For instance, impeachment by Parliament, or expulsion by the other justices, etc.)

Thanks! -- Starbucks301 (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Article says, " the old system had confused people". Should not this statement be broaded to put it into context to read:

The entire government of the UK is a confused Byzantine tangle, which nobody can understand, based not on any constitution, but various traditions"? (PeacePeace (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC))

Flag?

Wikipedia claims that Graham Bartram designed the flag of the Supreme Court. JDAWiseman (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Picture

I found this fantastic picture on Twitter of all 12 current judges of the Supreme Court. It would be great to add it to this article and others, but I'm not sure about the copyright. Could anyone advise? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Court 1 Interior, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 20, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-12-20. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, as well as for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It also hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. The court is located in the Middlesex Guildhall on Parliament Square, London; this photograph depicts the interior of Court 1, the largest of the three courtrooms in the building.

Photograph credit: David Iliff

Recently featured:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1157659973"