The Court and Legal System

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court and the United Kingdom's legal system. (PDF)

In October 2009, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) replaced The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest appeal court in the United Kingdom.

The Supreme Court’s 12 Justices maintain the highest standards set by the Appellate Committee, but are now explicitly separate from both Government and Parliament.

The Court hears appeals on arguable points of law of the greatest public importance, for the whole of the United Kingdom in civil cases, and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases.

Additionally, it hears cases on devolution matters under the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006. This jurisdiction was transferred to the Supreme Court from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The UKSC cannot consider a case unless a relevant order has been made in a lower court.

The Supreme Court sits in the former Middlesex Guildhall, on the western side of Parliament Square.

This new location is highly symbolic of the United Kingdom’s separation of powers, balancing judiciary and legislature across the open space of Parliament Square, with the other two sides occupied by the executive (the Treasury building) and the Church (Westminster Abbey).

The Supreme Court also decides devolution issues, that is issues about whether the devolved executive and legislative authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have acted or propose to act within their powers or have failed to comply with any other duty imposed on them. Devolution cases can reach the Supreme Court in three ways:

• Through a reference from someone who can exercise relevant statutory powers such as the Attorney General, whether or not the issue is the subject of litigation.

• Through an appeal from certain higher courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

• Through a reference from certain appellate courts.

Significance to the UK

Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.

The Supreme Court was established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom's senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They sat for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.

For instance, in their first legal year, the Justices gave landmark rulings on access to legal advice for Scottish suspects, the rights of gay asylum seekers, and the weight to be given to pre-nuptial agreements.

UK judicial system

For historical reasons, as a state made up of several separate jurisdictions, the United Kingdom does not have a single unified legal system.

Instead, there is one system for England and Wales, another for Scotland, and a third for Northern Ireland.

In most cases, The Supreme Court sits above all of these as the final court of appeal.

History

1 October 2009 marked a defining moment in the constitutional history of the United Kingdom with the separation of judicial power from its historic home in the nation's legislature, the Houses of Parliament, and its transfer to the Supreme Court's own building.

Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 had provided for the Court's legal existence. This then came into legal effect when the newly restored building was ready for its new purpose. 

By moving to the historic setting of the former Middlesex Guildhall, the Supreme Court took its place in the cluster of official state buildings that surround the edges of Parliament Square; the Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey and the Treasury.

Since its opening in 2009, the Supreme Court has continued to fulfil its role as the final appeal court adjudicating in cases of the greatest public importance. One of the major benefits of moving the Court into its own building is that public access, both physically and virtually through the live streaming of cases on our website, is considerably improved.

Appellate Committee of The House of Lords

The judicial role of the House of Lords evolved over more than 600 years: originally from the work of the royal court, the “Curia Regis”, which advised the sovereign, passed laws and dispensed justice at the highest level. 

Until 1399, both Houses of Parliament heard petitions for the judgments of lower courts to be reversed. After this date, the House of Commons stopped considering such cases, leaving the House of Lords as the highest court of appeal. (By custom, the whole House of Lords could sit as a court on special occasions, such as the trial of one of their own members).

In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act was passed to regulate how appeals were heard.  It also appointed Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: highly qualified professional judges working full time on the judicial business of the House. These Law Lords were able to vote on legislation as full Members of the House of Lords, but in practice rarely did so.

Before the Second World War, the Law Lords used to hear appeals each day in the chamber of the House of Lords.

After the House of Commons was bombed, the Law Lords moved their hearings to a nearby committee room to escape the noise of the building repairs, constituting themselves as an Appellate Committee for the purpose. In fact, this temporary arrangement proved so successful that it became permanent, and continued for the remainder of the Appellate Committee’s life. 

On the commencement of the Supreme Court in October 2009, all current Law Lords became its first Justices.

The first Justices remain Members of the House of Lords, but are unable to sit and vote in the House.  All new Justices appointed after October 2009 have been directly appointed to The Supreme Court on the recommendation of a selection commission.

Middlesex Guildhall

The home of the Supreme Court is the former Middlesex Guildhall, an impressive building in an historic location directly linked with justice and the law for nearly a millennium.

Long before the earliest courthouse was built here, the site was occupied by Westminster Abbey’s Sanctuary Tower and Old Belfry, where fugitives could seek refuge from their pursuers on an island at the junction of the Tyburn and the Thames.

In 1889 the old courthouse was replaced by the first Middlesex Guildhall, which housed the Middlesex County Council and Quarter Sessions. However, even this soon became too small, and the present building opened its doors just before the first world war in 1913.

Designed by architect James Gibson, and built in Portland stone, it features a great deal of internal and external decorative work by Henry Fehr and was described by Nikolaus Pevsner as art nouveau Gothic.

In 1964 Middlesex ceased to exist as an administrative and judicial area, and the Guildhall was converted in the 1980s to a Crown Court centre with seven busy criminal courtrooms. Original features were obscured by machinery, cells and partitions. The amount of natural light entering the building was vastly reduced, making it feel cluttered and gloomy.

Today, renovation work for The Supreme Court has restored many of these hidden details, including fine panelling, carving and stained glass with connections to the old county of Middlesex.

Both light wells bring daylight back into the heart of the building again, in accordance with Gibson’s designs.  Newly recreated spaces house airy new courtrooms, a magnificent triple-height law library, and welcoming public areas including a café and an exhibition area.

Restored to full splendour, the building now brings both dignity and accessibility to its role, housing the highest court in the United Kingdom.

The Supreme Court and Europe

What is the relationship between the UK Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union?

The Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in October 2000, made available, for the first time, a remedy for breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in the UK courts. This means that, in appropriate cases, all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are tasked with deciding whether public bodies have acted compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, through the Human Rights Act, Parliament imposed on all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, a duty to interpret legislation so that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, so far as it is possible to do so. If it is not possible to interpret legislation compatibly with the Convention, the courts can issue a "declaration of incompatibility" – which sends a clear steer to legislators that they should change the law to make it Convention-compliant. No UK court, including the Supreme Court, has the power to "strike down" legislation if it is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act also requires UK courts, including the Supreme Court, to "take account" of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (which sits in Strasbourg). UK courts are not required, however, always to follow the decisions of that Court. Indeed, they can decline to do so, particularly if they consider that the Strasbourg Court has not sufficiently appreciated or accommodated particular aspects of our domestic constitutional position.

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights exist separately from the European Union. The Supreme Court's relationship with the Strasbourg Court is not, therefore, changed by the UK's exit from the European Union.

The relationship between the UK Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union (which sits in Luxembourg) has, however, changed. Two key changes are provided for in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and related legislation.

First, the UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are not bound by decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union made after 11pm on 31 December 2020. The UK courts, including the Supreme Court, may have regard to the Luxembourg Court's decisions if relevant, but they are not generally obliged to follow them.

The Supreme Court (and some other UK appellate courts) are also free to depart from decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union taken before 11pm on 31 December 2020. In deciding whether or not to depart from this retained EU case law, the courts will apply the same test that the Supreme Court applies when deciding whether to depart from its own case law. This means that the Supreme Court (and other relevant UK appellate courts) will depart from a previous decision of the Luxembourg Court where it appears right to do so.

Secondly, from 11pm on 31 December 2020, all UK courts, including the Supreme Court, are no longer able or required to refer certain questions of European Union law to the Court of Justice (through what is known as the "preliminary reference procedure"). There are some limited exceptions to this. For example, the UK courts, including the Supreme Court, continue to be able to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union about the interpretation of the citizens' rights provisions in Part 2 of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement.

Back to top