Why the public doesn’t understand its own courts

Aspiring barrister David Eke examines the UK public’s mistrust in the legal system and why more needs to be done to combat this

There is growing mistrust of the court among the public in the UK. Underlying this is a misunderstanding of the court’s roles and powers in the United Kingdom’s constitutional set up. The government recognises the danger which public distrust in state institutions poses to our democracy. In fact, it is so live to this issue that it has set out strategies in a policy paper to attempt to restore trust. As part of this, it will stringently punish perpetrators of voter harassment and intimidation, to show the populace that there is no double standard in the enforcement of the law. The government has also set out strategies to curb misinformation surreptitiously propagated by countries like Russia and China that breeds distrust in the state’s institutions.

However, neither the government nor the judiciary (whom the issue within this article most concerns) have outlined strategies with a view to addressing the public’s growing mistrust of the court, which is just as much a threat to British democracy as voter harassment and widespread misinformation. With growing calls for an authoritarian leader in the United Kingdom’s presently polarised political climate, it is not totally improbable that authoritarian leaders ready to undermine the court’s authority can and will acquire power. More worrying is the fact that the public, if things remain as they are, may not be bothered in such a scenario, being so misguidedly disillusioned by the court system and not fully grasping the role it plays and powers it possesses in our democracy.

Law beyond legislation

Therefore, even as Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court, claimed in a lecture in 2025, it is crucial that more is done to explain the roles and powers of the court to the public as well as to politicians and journalists. This is because the public’s misunderstanding stems from politicians’ and journalists’ misunderstanding or feigned misunderstanding of the court’s roles and powers in the UK’s constitutional landscape.

The public’s views on this matter are shaped, greatly, by the media and politicians; therefore, if a politician, like the one Lord Reed talked about in a lecture, thinks the court a ‘constitutionally illegitimate [activist]’ for doing its constitutionally legitimate work of interpreting the law, one can only imagine what (incorrect) ideas the public would have (acquired) about the court’s roles and powers.

This piece is a small contribution to what should be a concerted effort (by the judiciary and beyond), to foster greater understanding of the court’s roles and powers, and consequently, greater trust in the court of England and Wales. I will attempt to clarify some instances of misunderstanding of the court’s powers, explain the widely misunderstood concept of judicial review, explain the court’s role in the United Kingdom’s constitutional set up, and also show how misunderstanding of the court’s roles and powers has led to and continues to breed public distrust of the court.

The politician that Lord Reed spoke off during his address was operating under a great misapprehension when he classified the court as a constitutionally illegitimate activist. He did not understand that ‘the law’ in the United Kingdom is not just statute/legislation made by parliament: ‘The law’ also includes judgements made in the court, which set binding ‘precedents’. Legislation creates rules that guide behaviour, generically. Legislation also attempts to create rules that cover different permutations of cases that could arise. However, no matter how hard parliament tries, it cannot cover all the unique circumstances that must be considered in different people’s cases. Therefore, the court supplements parliament by hearing cases with their unique circumstances and creating rules that apply uniquely to each case. This process ensures that ‘the law’ is just, fair, and proportionate.

If the aforementioned politican had understood this, they would have known: firstly, that the court’s judgements are not illegitimate, given that the court was doing the work it has authority to do; secondly, that the court’s judgement was not mere (passionate, irrational, or unfounded) ‘activism’ but a non-partisan deduction of parliament’s intention in statute as well as an analytical application to the case’s unique circumstances.

One could argue, reasonably, that the judges are nonetheless human; hence, they are not totally devoid of their personal, political proclivities. Given this, it must be understood that the judges must demonstrate their reasoning in their obiter dictum, which is an explanation of why they are reaching a judgement in each case; the judges’ reasoning must also be in accordance with established legal principles and standards, not newly conjured touchstones. Also, up to nine judges in the supreme court can hear cases at a time, and they may (and in fact, often) reach different conclusions; in this scenario, the (simple) majority view would be followed. These hedge the system against the judges’ human limitations.

Politicians and journalists have played critical roles in making the Public distrustful of the court. Hearing comments like that of Kemi Badenoch MP, that the courts are avenues for attacks to democratic decisions in the form of litigation including judicial review, the public may start seeing the court in a bad light, especially given widespread misunderstanding about the work that the court does through judicial review. Political figures like Douglas Carswell have even proposed limiting judicial review.

These, as well as journalistic antics, have made the public understandably distrustful of the court. For instance, during Brexit one journalist, branded the court, “the enemy of the people”. Another called the day that High Court judges gave a judgment on whether former Prime Minister, Theresa May, could use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 without consulting parliament, “the day democracy died”. Whether politicians and journalists fully understand the court’s powers when it carries out judicial review, or they do not (as Lord Reed posits to be the case after receiving questions from politicians about “unelected judges overturning elected governments” decisions), the court’s powers in our constitutional set up, in general and in respect of judicial review must be explained, to restore the public’s trust in the court. I attempt a brief explanation of the court’s powers as a judicial reviewer below, however, more needs to be done to foster better public understanding of the court’s powers.

The scope of the courts’ powers

To clarify, in the Brexit instance outlined above, the High Court judges were ruling on a legal question of whether Theresa May, the Prime Minister, could use prerogative powers without consulting parliament, to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which would allow the United Kingdom to leave the European Union (EU). This case followed the referendum, where majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom voted in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the EU. The legal question the court considered was one of process, to determine how (not ‘whether’) the UK would leave the EU: the uproar that followed on social media, no doubt, fueled by misleading framings of the court in the news outlets, was a result of the public not recognising the devil (more like the Angel!) in the details.

To further clarify, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, unlike the Supreme Court of the United States cannot overturn legislation set out by parliament. Furthermore, judicial review is not a mere act of blocking the government/executive from doing its job. It is instead a democratic provision, to ensure checks and balances, that the government acts within the rule of law, and parliamentary sovereignty.

Therefore, the court when it carries out judicial review, does not just adjudge the government’s decisions, unlawful, on a whim; the court, instead, seeks to discern the true will/intention of parliament in legislation, and check whether the act of the executive in question is in line with legislation.

Law and morality

Many have also thought the court an avenue for moral battles; however, the court is a court of law, not a court of morality. Especially in cases like Higgs v Farmor’s School that involve controversial issues such as protected beliefs like gender critical views, it is easy to read sensational, shallow headlines on media platforms, and come away with a mistaken belief that the court champions one moral standpoint over the other. However, with a closer look at these cases, one would understand that the court is not concerned with determining whether gender critical views are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ as much of the populace believes.

It is instead concerned with a balancing act; with applying statute (for example, the Equality Act 2010, which was relevant in the Higgs case) to determine how organisations can be governed in a way that the rights of people with differing views are protected. Legislation, which is the heartbeat of any nation’s conscience, and the elected Legislators, are what citizens should be paying attention to, when evaluating society’s moral standpoints and bandwidth. Understanding this about the court will directly impact the public’s trust in the court.

Additionally, the case of the Teledyne Four (four pro-Palestinian activists convicted of criminal damage following a 16 hour rooftop-protest) further revealed how the public’s misconstruing the court as a court of morality, rather than a court of law, can breed distrust in the court system. The jury that sits in criminal cases in the English justice system are randomly selected from the public. In the case of the Teledyne four, the jury were selected as usual from the public, to hear what should have been a straightforward case of criminal damage, given that the judge had ruled out any lawful excuse that the four could have had. However, the jury refused to find the defendants guilty of criminal damage, and I posit that it was because of the jury’s own moral beliefs.

The defendants were politically motivated in damaging Teledyne’s defence and space’s property: they believed Teledyne defence armed Israel by manufacturing and supplying components used by Israel to make weapons; damaging Teledyne defence’s property was their way of showing solidarity to Palestine. The court retried the case, and the defendants were finally charged with criminal damage. Nonetheless, this case reveals the importance of the public, whether acting as citizens or juries, understanding that the court is not an avenue for political skirmishes, but for objective, non-partisan adjudication, based on evidence. Much of the public, infuriated by Teledyne’s losses, would be distrustful of a court that is unable to provide redress. This is why objective standards must (be understood to) apply across board.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary for the preservation of democracy in the United Kingdom, that the public trust the state’s institutions, including the courts. Also, understanding the court’s roles and powers is paramount for this trust to thrive. This essay is a small attempt at bridging the knowledge gap, in an accessible way. However, more must be done by the government and the judiciary, to explain the court’s processes and powers to laymen.

David Ben Eke is an aspiring barrister, who finished from the University of Bradford with first class Honours in 2026. He was selected as one of Lincoln’s Inn’s Lord Neuberger Prize winners, and completed a 10-month placement at the Government Legal Department in 2025.