The Supreme Court and the House of Lords

For many years the House of Lords was the highest court of appeal within the English legal system, but this came to an end in October 2009 when the new Supreme Court came into operation.

Although it is usual to speak simply of the House of Lords, it is more accurate to speak of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The appeals which this committee heard came from the Court of Appeal in both civil and criminal cases, as well as from the High Court in civil cases where permission was given to bypass the Court of Appeal (and go straight to the House of Lords) and in criminal cases. (Civil appeals which bypass the Court of Appeal are known, for the obvious reason, as leapfrog appeals.)

Members of the Appellate Committee were, in practice, specifically appointed to that position, although, strictly speaking, peers who held or had held high judicial office were also eligible to sit. Those who were specifically appointed were formally known as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The only female Law ‘Lord’ to be appointed was Baroness Hale of Richmond. Lords of Appeal in Ordinary were known by their titles (for example, Lord Grey and Baroness – or Lady – Green) with no distinction between the written and spoken forms. One senior Supreme Court Justice is designated as the President of the Supreme Court, while another is designated as the Deputy President. These justices have the designatory letters P and DP after their names, while the others have SCJ.

Law Lords received life peerages when they were appointed, but it was decided that new appointees would not continue to do so.

Finally, by way of a footnote, it is worth noting the distinction between the Appellate Committee (which we have just been discussing) and the Appeals Committee, which also consisted of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, but the function of which was to deal with petitions for permission to appeal to the House of Lords, rather than with the appeals themselves. Although this terminology is obviously inappropriate in the context of the Supreme Court, the practice of applications for permission to appeal being determined by three-judge panels continues, whereas appeals themselves are always held by at least five-judge panels (with seven-judge or even nine-judge panels being possible).