What were the main changes brought about by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and why were these considered necessary

A good example is the 2010 case law on HJ and HT vs. the secretary of state in charge of home department2. Under this case, the Supreme Court was required to rule on the status of the asylum application of two gay people, that is HJ, and HT3.
This was a human rights issue, where the court granted asylum to these people, on the grounds that they would persecuted, if deported back to their country. By closely looking at this ruling, it is important to denote that the courts were taking on new roles determining the human rights issues that the state had to adhere to. This therefore means that the courts are playing an important role in determining the kind of policies that the country should adopt, and the policies that it should not adopt4. This is an example of a judicial review. Furthermore, it is important to explain that the Supreme Court was enacted after the passage of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005.
This court was created under part three of the constitutional reform act. The constitutional reform act played a great role in reforming the judiciary, and specifically the three roles of the Lord Chancellor. These roles include his position as the speaker of the House of Lords, the head of the British Judiciary, and as a member of the cabinet5. These implied that the Lord Chancellor was a very powerful person, and there was no separation of powers, between the judiciary, the legislature, and the government. This situation made the Lord Chancellor to be vulnerable to an abuse of the executive authority of the government.
Another point of concern was the capability of the Lord Chancellor, in appointing judges of the high court and that of appeal. This is because of the roles that the senior judges played in scrutinizing the various policies of the government, hence appointment by a government minister, would compromise their ability to efficiently undertake