AO1: The doctrines of judicial review and ultra vires allow the unelected, unaccountable and socially unrepresentative Court to quash decisions by the elected government. AO2: Judicial review and the doctrine of ultra vires allow an unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative Court to overturn the will of the elected government, undermining the doctrine of mandate and manifesto AO3: meaning the Court has too much influence and it should be left to the elected to decide when rights can be restricted in the interests of the wider public interest. AO1: The Supreme Court can declare Acts of Parliament to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act. AO2: The unelected Supreme Court’s power to declare Acts incompatible places very strong moral pressure on the democratically elected Parliament to change the law even though that law expresses the wishes of the elected House of Commons AO3: so the Court can be seen to hold too much influence in the UK’s democratic system. AO1: The Supreme Court is taking on an increasingly political role and it should be up to parliament, in conversation with the people, to decide what the law should be. AO2: The Supreme Court since the HRA 1998 and CRA 2005 is increasingly involving itself in political decisions, e.g. Article 50, prorogation, immigration/deportation cases, which should be left to the elected branches AO3: showing the unelected Court has too much influence for an unelected body. AO1: 4. AO2: There has been a large increase in the number of judicial review cases. These cases, which are often criticised as weak, lacking merit, and are being used by those who have already lost the debate AO3: are limiting the ability of the democratically elected government to carry out its business effectively and deliver on its manifesto, showing the Court has too much influence over the executive and parliament.

AO1: The doctrines of judicial review and ultra vires ensure that the elected government operates within the rule of law. AO2: The rule of law is a central pillar of the UK constitution and of democracy, and it is vital that Court can uphold this principle where the public have challenged the lawfulness of the actions of the government AO3: and so it does not have too much influence. AO1: The Supreme Court can declare Acts of Parliament to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act but not force the elected Parliament to take action as it cannot strike down an Act of Parliament. AO2: The unelected Court does not have too much influence as declarations are not legally binding: the Court is pointing out that rights have been infringed AO3: and gives the democratically elected Parliament the option to change the law, which is entirely compatible with parliamentary sovereignty, a central feature of the UK’s democratic system, showing the Court does not have too much influence. AO1: The reason that the unelected judiciary has taken on an increased political role is down to the constitutional changes made by the elected branches. AO2: The elected branches passed the HRA 1998, the CRA 2005 and introduced devolution AO3: The Court does not have too much influence as it is simply fulfilling the role that elected branches have given it to decide key constitutional questions and uphold the laws passed by Parliament. AO1: The number of judicial review cases is not too high – in fact, such reviews protect the rights of the most vulnerable and improve the decision making of elected bodies. AO2: Judicial review by an unelected Court often protects the most vulnerable in society and helps improve decision making by elected bodies as they have to consider their legal obligations in international and national law AO3: and so play a vital role in checking parliament and the executive showing it does not have too much influence (A03).