Is there a lack of judicial neutrality?

The main argument is that judges have come from a narrow social and professional background. The majority are from middle and upper-class families.
They are almost exclusively male and the majority have been educated at independent schools. Up to the 1990’s there was good deal of evidence to suggest the background of judges did affect their outlook.
There were consistent decisions in favour of the government over trade union rights and policing powers.

The main argument in favour of the view that the British judiciary is effectively neutral arises from hard evidence. Increasingly large numbers of judgements in recent years have fallen in favour of individuals and minorities against governments, and the Belmarsh case of 2004 helps to show this.

In addition, the first Supreme Court which began in 2009 had 11/12 of its members educated at Oxford or Cambridge. Only 1 was female, and the average age was 68. Overall it looked very Conservative.
The social composition has changed slightly, bringing in independent-minded, ‘liberal’ judges to senior positions e.g Lord Hoffman. Finally, these individuals have received criticisms from both main parties suggesting they are largely neutral.