Supreme Court
Supreme Court - paragraph completion
3 paragraphs argue one side. You write the rebuttal and the interim judgement.
How this works. Each pre-written opening argues one side of the theme. Your job is the rebuttal: answer it with the named cases, then end on an interim judgement. Your writing saves on this device.
Paragraph 1 · theme: Activism
Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court has too much political influence.
The opening (given) - rebut this
Activism is often used to argue the view. Safety of Rwanda Act (2024): The Court did not act here - the limit of activism is reached when Parliament speaks clearly. Begum (2021): The opposite of activism - used the language of judicial deference explicitly. Read alone, these make the case look one-sided.
Your task - write the rebuttal
Answer back using the cases that point the other way: Miller 1 (2017) (Forced government to legislate before triggering Article 50 - a procedural intervention in the political process.); Miller 2 / Cherry (2019) (First ruling on personal royal prerogative; critics (Sumption) called it overreach.); Rwanda (2023) (Killed a major government policy that had been pursued for over a year.). Finish with an interim judgement that backs your line of argument.
Paragraph 2 · theme: Defended Parliament
Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court has too much political influence.
The opening (given) - rebut this
Defended Parliament is often used to argue the view. Belmarsh (2004): Parliament had passed the law; this ruling pushed against parliamentary judgement on national security. Begum (2021): Not relevant; about citizenship revocation. Rwanda (2023): Not the central issue. Read alone, these make the case look one-sided.
Your task - write the rebuttal
Answer back using the cases that point the other way: Miller 2 / Cherry (2019) (The legal test was whether prorogation frustrated Parliament - explicit defence of Parliament's right to sit.); Miller 1 (2017) (Central point of the ruling - Parliament must legislate to trigger Article 50; protected Parliament's role.); Safety of Rwanda Act (2024) (Demonstrated Parliament's last word - exactly what defenders of parliamentary sovereignty want.). Finish with an interim judgement that backs your line of argument.
Paragraph 3 · theme: Defended rights
Evaluate the view that the UK Supreme Court has too much political influence.
The opening (given) - rebut this
Defended rights is often used to argue the view. Begum (2021): Begum lost; right of return denied. Strongest evidence that the Court can rule AGAINST individual rights. Safety of Rwanda Act (2024): Statute disapplied parts of the HRA for Rwanda removals. Miller 2 / Cherry (2019): Not a rights case directly. Read alone, these make the case look one-sided.
Your task - write the rebuttal
Answer back using the cases that point the other way: Belmarsh (2004) (Defended right to liberty and freedom from discrimination under HRA Article 5 + 14.); Rwanda (2023) (Defended right to non-refoulement (Article 3 ECHR; refugee protection).). Finish with an interim judgement that backs your line of argument.