Transcript
[MUSIC PLAYING]
HOST:
The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal for all civil cases in the whole of the UK, and for all criminal ones, except for those in Scotland. It used to sit in the Houses of Parliament. And the country's top judges, known as law lords, not only presided over cases there, but were also members of the House of Lords.
But why was it necessary to move everything over here? To find out why, I'm going to ask one of the Supreme Court justices, Lord Kerr.
So why was the Supreme Court established as a separate entity?
LORD KERR:
A fundamental principle of separation of powers is a cornerstone of our constitution. And what that means is that there should be a division of responsibility between those who make the laws and those who are responsible, like me, for adjudicating on difficult points of law. And the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, by establishing the Supreme Court, made that expressly clear.
HOST:
The old Middlesex guild hall building was chosen for the new site, and eventually, the new Supreme Court of the UK opened in October 2009.
[APPLAUSE]
As a result, the law lords became Supreme Court justices.
LAW LORD:
And I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm.
HOST:
When the law lords sat in the House of Lords, it wasn't accessible to the public. It was pretty difficult to help people get their heads around what actually went on there. And as a result, very few people ever sat in the public galleries. I wonder if things have changed with the move here.
LORD KERR:
Working in the House of Lords was super in many ways. But here, the working conditions are much better. We have much more space for our staff. Perhaps more importantly even than that is that we're much more accessible to the public. We have lots of visitors. We have a very good exhibition centre. We have extraordinarily good reception staff. They explain to the visitors what's happening in the court that day. They conduct tours. And generally, we find we're a very popular tourist attraction.
HOST:
I don't know what I expected before I came here-- probably that it was all going to feel a bit unfriendly and imposing. But being here, you really don't get that feeling at all. What you do notice, though, is that the courts here don't look anything like the courts we're used to seeing on the telly. So how does it all work here?
For a case to be heard here, it needs to have gone through a whole load of different stages before it reaches the Supreme Court-- as will cases from Scotland, although criminal cases from Scotland can only reach this court in certain circumstances. The high court of the justiciary is usually Scotland's highest for criminal matters.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
The judges HERE also serve as the highest court of appeal for a whole load of other countries in the Commonwealth, and for British overseas territories, when they sit as something called the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Only certain cases make it as far as the Supreme Court. To do so, they must address a wider issue of importance to society. This can be clearly seen in some of the most high profile cases to find their way to the House of Lords, or more recently, to the Supreme Court.
I've come to me Lady Hale, another of the Supreme Court justices, and the first woman to be appointed to the role, to find out a bit more about how the court works.
LADY HALE:
Well, we're an appeal court. That means that we don't hear the witnesses. We don't decide who's telling the truth. We don't decide what the facts are. The parties come to us with a set of facts. And they ask us what the law is. We only choose to have the cases which involve general points of law, which are important to a large number of the population.
For example, we were hearing a case which is all about what responsibilities the Ministry of Defence owes to the soldiers fighting in Iraq for the equipment that they sent them out to fight with. What could be more important than that?
HOST:
And why are these points of law so, so important?
LADY HALE:
Well, once we have decided what the law is, then everybody else has to follow it. So the case about the army, it comes up to us. We decide what the responsibilities of the government, if any, are. It then goes back to the trial judge, who will apply what we have said when he comes to decide the case. But not only that case-- every other case that raises the same point, the judges in the courts below us have to do what we have said the law is. It's called the doctrine of precedent.
HOST:
I wonder if how the Supreme Court works affects the layout of the courtrooms, which looks very different from what you might expect them to.
LADY HALE:
You'll see there isn't a witness box. There isn't a jury box. There isn't even a press box, because anybody can come in and sit at the back and listen to what we're doing. We're all round a table. So the justices are in a curve on one side, and the barristers and the other lawyers and the parties they represent are in a curve on the other side. And we try and make it feel like a general discussion of these very important issues.