Personnel have been increasingly isolated from the other organs of government, no longer sitting in the House of Lords or in the Cabinet.
Although the United Kingdom recognises parliamentary sovereignty, writers have stressed the importance of the independence of the judiciary in establishing the rule of law, among them Trevor Allan.
[1] Albert Venn Dicey, writing in 1915 in Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, described the separation of powers as "the offspring of a double misconception".
[2] More recently Sir Ivor Jennings has argued that it is of little relevance,[1] and, faced with the role of the executive within the legislature, some authors describe only the independence of the judiciary as evidence that the model applies to the modern United Kingdom.
[8] Another important idea is that variations within each separate part of government are as significant as differences in approach between branches, and require similar consideration.
[9] However, Lord Mustill summarised the prevailing modern viewpoint in the 1995 judgment, R. v Home Secretary ex parte Fire Brigades Union:[1][10] It is a feature of the peculiarly UK conception of the separation of powers that Parliament, the executive and the courts each have their distinct and largely exclusive domain.
[16] Most other members of the executive are excluded from holding legislative office, including the Civil Service, the armed forces, and the police, some of whom are prevented from becoming involved in any political affairs.
[16] The Prime Minister wields considerable power on behalf of the executive, as party leader and chief spokesperson for government policy.
The Attorney General (England and Wales) and the Lord Advocate (Scotland) have "quasi-judicial roles" but are part of the executive.
[18] In terms of control, the independence of the judiciary is confirmed through statute, constitutional convention, and weight of opinion.
In England and Wales, judges in superior courts cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the executive, instead serving whilst in "good behaviour".
[19] The judiciary undertake minor legislative functions in the form of court procedure, which, whilst the performance of a conflicting power, strengthens their independence.
Government departments adjudicate on many decisions, and are required to take principles such as fairness and transparency into account in return.
[19] There remain problems with the scope of role of the Home Secretary in the penal system and judicial decisions with regard to sentencing.
However the Home Secretary announced that she refused to sign the order as she believed it would harm his life rights and could lead to him committing suicide.
The legislature retains the right to impeach members of the judiciary by agreement of both houses, but this has only happened once in three hundred years.
[22] Although the Human Rights Act 1998 allows the courts to make a declaration of incompatibility, they are required to interpret but may not disapply primary legislation.
[23] Each House of Parliament retains the right to punish offenders within its walls (including exclusive cognisance), with the potential to cause conflict.
[24] the court thought it very unlikely that "the intention of Parliament" was to protect those guilty of a crime unrelated to parliamentary business in this way.