Today, the House's jurisdiction is limited to the hearing of appeals from the lower courts that are technically addressed to the Queen-in-Parliament. By constitutional convention these judges known as Lords of Appeal or Lords of Law hear the appeals. For several years we have heard of the deafening calls for reform and change in the highest court of this land which separates them from the second house of Parliament. The recent calls moved for the removal of the Lords of Appeal from the legislature which received full support and endorsement from the government on March 21, 2005 leading us all to believe that the Constitutional Reform Act, 20052, as a new system will reflect the independence of the judiciary from both the legislature and the executive. According to Thoroton3, the Judicial Committee would continue to exist and to undertake its work for various Commonwealth and overseas and dependent territory jurisdictions4. This has however created a constant stir that allows us to see how the Lords have fared in the last 25 years in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities which concerns every citizen in the society as a whole.
Undeniably, the continuing dissatisfaction over the last 30 years on the performance of the House of Lords, has put into question their credibility and independence. Certain motivational factors that may have affected this change has created furor especially in their capacity to handle cases and effectively carry out their function. We try to entertain these motivational factors as the basis for this study that aims to look into the important aspect of their decision-making. More importantly we will look into the ratio and length of judgment in comparison with their collective judgments rendered that would reflect their capacity to handle a fair trial.
Based on the total number of cases, we used the common method of random sampling to arrive at and identify at least 5 cases per year as a basis from this evaluation from 1975-2000.
The emergence of the constitutional reform act has set to obtain the government's motivation for the reform act. Clearly it has set to remove the Law Lords' ability to act as both a government minister and a judge. According to the House Common Bill of Rights5, this is motivated in part by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power, may not be in conformance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Robertson 1998 has analyzed and branded concentrates on the arguments the Law Lords use in justifying their decisions, and is concerned as much with the legal methodology as with the substance of their decisions. Very close attention is paid to the different approaches and styles of their judicial argument. Munday6 has also explained the certain application of coming to one single realization among 5 judges to arrive at 1 conclusion and gives a lot of room for unfair judgment. Robertson7 has expressed that Law Lords enjoy and fully utilise far more discretion in their judgments than is normally admitted, and that much depends on exactly which judges happen to hear a case.
Data Interpretation and Analysis
In a convention, it was decided that the office of Senior Law Lord was automatically assumed