Fit for the future
The UK’s highest court has a new name and location. Although there are few substantive procedural differences, there is concern at a rise in fees, writes Hugh Tomlinson QC.
The highest court in the United Kingdom has moved house. It has gone from an inaccessible corridor in the House of Lords to a prominent building on Parliament Square with every modern facility.
The former Middlesex Guildhall has been refurbished, at a cost of nearly £60 million, to provide three courtrooms. There is ample space for the public and a media suite. For the first time in the English courts, all the proceedings are being filmed. The court has a well designed, accessible, website which provides access to judgments, case details and information about the court and the justices.
The creation of the Supreme Court is the final stage in the formal separation of powers in the British Constitution. The judges of the highest court are no longer members of the legislature. The Constitutional Reform Act which created it also made the Lord Chief Justice the head of the judiciary. From its position on Parliament Square, across from the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court looks and feels like a separate branch of government.
But the new court has not been given new powers or personnel. The former Law Lords (and Lady) are now “Justices of the Supreme Court”. With one important exception, the powers of the new Court are identical to those of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The exception is that “devolution issues” referred from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales which were previously dealt with by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are now dealt with by the Supreme Court.
Many have suggested that despite having the same powers, the new court will draw a new self-confidence from formal separation from the legislature and will take on a more activist role. This seems unlikely. The Judicial Committee did not lack self-confidence and was prepared, in appropriate cases, to take a firm stance against the government of the day.
When it comes to procedure there are not many substantive differences between the new court and the House of Lords. The arcane language of “petitions” has been replaced by the now familiar vocabulary of “applications for permission to appeal” and “notices of appeal”. There is now a “Notice of Appeal” form on the website which can be completed online and printed out. These forms have to be submitted electronically as well as in hard copy. The time limit for filing an appeal has been reduced from one month to 28 days.
The new rules are less prescriptive about how the parties should frame their cases and the presentation of documents for appeal hearings. The Rules of the Supreme Court and the Practice Directions are also available on the court’s website.
On the downside, court fees have been increased substantially. For example, the fee for presenting an appeal or seeking permission to appeal goes up from £570 to £800 and the fee payable on filing a statement of relevant facts and issues goes up from £3,420 to £4,820.
The most important difference is in public accessibility and visibility. The new building is a London landmark. There have been large public attendances at a number of high profile appeals over the first two months of the court’s existence.
Video footage of all the hearings will be publicly available (although only a few, tantalising, clips have been broadcast so far). Press coverage of the court’s decisions has been extensive.
As a result, the cases which reach the court are likely to have a higher level of press and public scrutiny than those which were heard in the committee rooms on the House of Lords judicial corridor.
Hugh Tomlinson QC is a member of Matrix Chambers
He is joint editor of www.ukscblog.com, a blog produced by Matrix and Olswang LLP devoted to the Supreme Court and providing previews and case comments on every case and news of other developments relating to the court.
