## Introduction

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 reshaped the UK’s constitutional set‑up by redrawing the relationship between the judiciary, Parliament, and the executive. It removed the judicial role of the Lord Chancellor, created the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom to take over appellate work from the House of Lords, and put statutory duties in place to protect judicial independence.

The reforms responded to long‑standing concerns about the mix of roles within the Lord Chancellor’s office and the presence of the Appellate Committee within the legislature. They also sat against a backdrop of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) case law and growing calls for clearer separation between those who make the law, those who enforce it, and those who interpret it. The result is a more transparent structure that keeps parliamentary sovereignty while setting out clearer institutional lines.

## What You'll Learn

- Why the Act was introduced and the problems it aimed to fix
- How the Lord Chancellor’s role changed and what remains
- How and why the UK Supreme Court was established
- Statutory protection for the rule of law and judicial independence
- How separation of powers sits alongside parliamentary sovereignty
- The Westminster model: what changed and what stayed the same
- Key cases: Duport Steels, Bank Mellat (No. 1), Prohibitions del Roy, and Anderson
- Practical steps for essays, problem questions, and legal practice

## Core Concepts

### Recasting the Lord Chancellor

Historically, the Lord Chancellor sat in all three branches: Cabinet minister, head of the judiciary, and speaker in the House of Lords. The Act ends that combination.

- No judicial functions: The Lord Chancellor no longer sits as a judge or heads the judiciary.
- Appointment: The Prime Minister recommends a candidate “qualified by experience,” reflecting the job’s political and constitutional demands rather than a requirement to be a sitting judge.
- Duty to defend independence: The Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. Other ministers share obligations not to seek to influence judicial decisions.
- Transfer of functions: Responsibilities for judicial leadership and administration moved to the Lord Chief Justice and to newly structured bodies, most notably the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), which recommends candidates for judicial office through an open, published process.

What to remember: the post remains a senior ministerial role, but it is no longer judicial. Its legal obligations now focus on safeguarding courts from executive pressure.

### Creation of the UK Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the final court of appeal in civil cases across the UK and in criminal cases for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

- Institutional separation: Moving the top court out of Parliament provides a clearer line between the judiciary and the legislature.
- Composition and appointments: The Court has a President, a Deputy President, and up to 12 Justices. A selection commission (with representation spanning the UK’s jurisdictions) recommends candidates. Selection is on merit, with attention to encouraging diversity in the pool of applicants.
- Physical separation: The Court sits in the Middlesex Guildhall, across Parliament Square, symbolising and supporting independence in day‑to‑day operation.

What to remember: the Supreme Court’s creation is not just a rebrand; it is a structural move designed to show, and maintain, independence from Parliament.

### Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law

The Act places two simple but weighty ideas on a statutory footing.

- Rule of law: The Act recognises the rule of law as a core constitutional principle.
- Duties on ministers: The Lord Chancellor and other ministers must uphold judicial independence. They must not try to influence particular judicial decisions, and they must respect the proper administration of justice.
- Culture and practice: Oaths of office, transparent appointment processes, and a court physically separate from Parliament work together to reduce the risk of perceived or actual pressure on judges.

What to remember: independence and the rule of law are no longer left mostly to convention; they now carry explicit legal duties.

### Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Sovereignty

The UK did not adopt a codified, equal division between branches. Instead, the Act clarifies roles while keeping Parliament supreme.

- Parliament makes the law; courts interpret and apply it: As recognised in Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs, judges should not take on a legislative role.
- Checks on executive power: An independent judiciary ensures the executive stays within the limits set by Parliament and the common law.
- No power to strike down Acts: Unlike some jurisdictions, UK courts do not invalidate Acts of Parliament. The focus is on interpretation, scrutiny, and procedural fairness.

What to remember: the Act improves practical separation without altering parliamentary sovereignty.

### The Westminster Model: Overlap and Efficiency

The UK system still reflects Bagehot’s view that some overlap between the executive and legislature can aid efficient law‑making. The Act recognises this political reality while strengthening judicial independence.

- Cabinet and Commons: Ministers sit in Parliament and answer to it. Limits on the number of ministers in the Commons preserve space for backbench scrutiny.
- Courts and dispute resolution: Courts apply law to facts through a triadic process well suited to case‑by‑case adjudication. From Prohibitions del Roy (1607) onward, it has been clear that legal disputes require judicial skill, not executive direction.
- Procedure and fairness: Later cases, including Bank Mellat (No. 1), show how the Supreme Court manages sensitive material while keeping a firm grip on fairness and legality.

What to remember: the Act supports efficiency in government while entrenching independence in judging.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142

- Context: A trade union dispute raised questions about the role of judges in filling statutory gaps.
- Held: The House of Lords stressed that courts should not legislate; their role is to interpret statutes enacted by Parliament.
- Takeaway: Use Duport to anchor arguments that the Act’s separation of roles fits long‑standing judicial restraint.

### Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No. 1) [2013] UKSC 38

- Context: Sanctions against an Iranian bank involved closed material and national security.
- Held: The Supreme Court managed closed sessions and confirmed that any departure from open justice must be strictly controlled by the court.
- Takeaway: The modern Supreme Court exercises strong procedural control, balancing fairness and security.

### Prohibitions del Roy (1607) 12 Co Rep 63

- Context: The King sought to decide a case personally.
- Held: Only judges may determine legal disputes; the common law requires training and experience to apply.
- Takeaway: A classic statement separating adjudication from executive power—often cited to show why judicial independence matters.

### R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46

- Context: The Home Secretary set minimum terms for life sentences.
- Held: Executive setting of tariffs was incompatible with Article 6 ECHR (fair trial); sentencing is a judicial task.
- Takeaway: The case supports the Act’s move to prevent executive involvement in core judicial functions.

## Practical Applications

- Use the Act as a framing tool: In essays or advice notes, set out Parliament’s role (statutes), the executive’s role (policy and administration), and the judiciary’s role (interpretation and adjudication). Explain how the Act clarified, rather than replaced, this division.
- Cite duties on ministers: When analysing alleged pressure on judges, start with the statutory duty to uphold independence. Spell out how any conduct might conflict with that duty.
- Appointments questions: Refer to the JAC’s role, the published selection process, and the commitment to merit with encouragement of diversity. Discuss how this addresses public confidence.
- Supreme Court independence: Where symbolism matters (e.g., public trust), note the move to Middlesex Guildhall and the removal of judicial business from the legislature.
- Parliamentary sovereignty: In problem questions about court powers, make clear that the Supreme Court cannot strike down Acts. It can interpret strictly, apply proportionality where appropriate, and issue declarations (where provided by statute, such as under the Human Rights Act 1998), but sovereign legislation stands.
- Westminster model points: Acknowledge the continuing overlap between government and Parliament, while stressing that the Act insulated the judiciary. Use Prohibitions and Duport for historical and doctrinal support, and Bank Mellat for modern procedure.
- ECHR compliance: Use Anderson to explain why separating executive power from sentencing supports Article 6 and public confidence.

## Summary Checklist

- Lord Chancellor: no judicial role; statutory duty to uphold judicial independence
- Supreme Court: created by statute; independent of the House of Lords; separate building
- Judicial independence: duties on the Lord Chancellor and other ministers; no interference in individual cases
- Rule of law: recognised expressly in the Act
- Appointments: JAC recommends on merit with measures to widen the field of applicants
- Separation vs sovereignty: courts interpret; Parliament legislates; Acts are not struck down
- Westminster model: some overlap remains, but courts are insulated
- Cases to remember: Duport Steels (judicial restraint), Prohibitions del Roy (adjudication is judicial), Anderson (sentencing must be judicial), Bank Mellat (court control of closed procedures)
- Practical point: in any interference scenario, start with the statutory duties and show how they guide proper conduct

## Quick Reference

| Topic                         | Authority                             | Takeaway                                            |
| ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |
| Rule of law recognised        | Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s.1    | The Act affirms the rule of law as a core principle |
| Duty to uphold independence   | Constitutional Reform Act 2005 s.3    | Ministers must protect judicial independence        |
| Supreme Court established     | Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Part 3 | Final appellate court, separate from Parliament     |
| Lord Chancellor redefined     | Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Part 2 | No judicial functions; duty to defend independence  |
| Judicial appointments process | Constitutional Reform Act 2005 Part 4 | JAC runs a transparent, merit‑based process         |

2005 Constitutional Reform Act Analysis