Role for Parliament in Independent Judicial Appointments: Insights from the Comptroller and Auditor General
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the UK, there is a debate as to whether Parliament should have a role in judicial appointments similar to the that of the US Senate. The minority in favour of this position argues that it would enhance the democratic legitimacy of the judiciary – who are currently selected by various independent commissions – and refers to the proposed reform’s coherence with the general practice of pre-appointment hearings in the UK (such as for the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission) and other parliamentary systems. However, the majority against this position argues that meaningful input into judicial appointments, by parliamentarians, would necessarily undermine the impartiality of the judiciary and outweigh the benefits of judicial democratisation. This paper seeks to add to the debate by establishing a detailed proposal for a parliamentary confirmation model for nominations to the UKSC and arguing that it would be both consistent with and enhancing to judicial independence. The research compares the constitutional foundations and historical origins of the Comptroller and Auditor General – an independent office co-nominated by the Government and Opposition, but confirmed by Parliament – and the UKSC, plus the American and Canadian Supreme Courts. This paper fundamentally argues three points: that there is a democratic deficit in the UKSC judicial appointment model; that the Comptroller and Auditor General is sufficiently equivalent to the UKSC so that its appointment model could be translated onto judicial appointments; and that said translation would remedy said democratic deficit, without compromising the non-partisanship of the UKSC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".