Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Judges and Journalists and the Spaces In Between
- 1 Judicial Communication: (Re)Constructing Legitimacy in Argentina
- 2 Communication beyond the Judgments: The Australian High Court, Speaking for Itself, but Not Tweeting
- 3 Uncommon Transparency: The Supreme Court, Media Relations, and Public Opinion in Brazil
- 4 The “Uncomfortable Embrace”: The Supreme Court and the Media in Canada
- 5 Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court and the Media
- 6 The Supreme Court and Media in Ghana's Fourth Republic: An Analysis of Rulings and Interactions between Two Estates of the Realm
- 7 The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice
- 8 Carping, Criticizing, and Circumventing: Judges, the Supreme Court, and the Media in Israel
- 9 Judicial Communication in South Korea: Moving toward a More Open System?
- 10 Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court
- 11 Norway: Managed Openness and Transparency
- 12 Judicial Institutional Change and Court Communication Innovations: The Case of the UK Supreme Court
- 13 Symbiosis: The US Supreme Court and the Journalists Who Cover It
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
12 - Judicial Institutional Change and Court Communication Innovations: The Case of the UK Supreme Court
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2017
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Judges and Journalists and the Spaces In Between
- 1 Judicial Communication: (Re)Constructing Legitimacy in Argentina
- 2 Communication beyond the Judgments: The Australian High Court, Speaking for Itself, but Not Tweeting
- 3 Uncommon Transparency: The Supreme Court, Media Relations, and Public Opinion in Brazil
- 4 The “Uncomfortable Embrace”: The Supreme Court and the Media in Canada
- 5 Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court and the Media
- 6 The Supreme Court and Media in Ghana's Fourth Republic: An Analysis of Rulings and Interactions between Two Estates of the Realm
- 7 The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice
- 8 Carping, Criticizing, and Circumventing: Judges, the Supreme Court, and the Media in Israel
- 9 Judicial Communication in South Korea: Moving toward a More Open System?
- 10 Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court
- 11 Norway: Managed Openness and Transparency
- 12 Judicial Institutional Change and Court Communication Innovations: The Case of the UK Supreme Court
- 13 Symbiosis: The US Supreme Court and the Journalists Who Cover It
- Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) opened on 1 October 2009 making it one of the world's newest Supreme Courts. It came into being under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. In part the dynamic shaping the new institution was continuity. The new court took over the roles and responsibilities of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The committee's role as the final court of appeal for all UK civil cases, and criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland transferred to the new court. Access to the new court would continue to be controlled via a permission to apply procedure. Appeals would continue to be limited to points of law of legal and constitutional importance. The judges, commonly known as Law Lords, who made up the Appellate Committee became the first ‘Justices’ of the UKSC. The senior Law Lord, Baron Phillips of Worth Matravers, became the UKSC's first President. Change was also an important driver behind the 2005 Act in general and the provisions establishing the UKSC in particular. A central goal of these reforms is the clearer separation of powers between the judiciary and the other branches of state. Its impact upon the UKSC is captured in a comment made in the court's first Business Plan (2009):
The court's creation marks the visible separation of the United Kingdom's highest court from the legislature. It is designed both to increase the transparency of the judicial process and to help clarify the relationship between the Judiciary, Government and Parliament. (1)
In part the visibility and clarity of the court's position within the state was been realized through the court's physical location. Located in Parliament Square it is close to other buildings housing key state institutions, but physically separate from them. Commenting on the court's new location Lord Hope, the first Deputy President of the UKSC explained the move from a committee room in Parliament to a dedicated building of its own in the following terms, ‘Public perception is everything’ (Hope 2010, 6). A different form of ‘public perception’ was a matter addressed during the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (2007) investigation into the impact of the new separation of powers landscape introduced by the 2005 Act. Discussion focused on the importance of communication in general and media coverage in particular.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Justices and JournalistsThe Global Perspective, pp. 255 - 280Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017