Well, sometimes the Supreme Court in the UK does do the right thing, though only after people have been Harassed-by-Court for months or even years and in practice only for people with enough money to afford the solicitor and barrister fees to take their case all the way up to it.

Sometimes it’s even worse - when the Law it’s actually in the books it might mean going all the way up to the European Court Of Human rights (which is not an EU organisation and still applies to the UK as long as they’re a member of the European Convention On Human Rights).

The system of check and balances is at best there only for people with enough money to afford it. (Though I suppose they could do as one of my family members did in my home country and actually get a Law Degree and take the case herself all the way up to the ECHR, though in the UK I believe even the cheapest Universities are pretty expensive)

Then, of course, there’s the other side of the injustice - actually punishing the guilty: the Crown Prosecution Service and other entities which prosecute crimes are pretty arbitary about who they go after as they can simply say “it’s not in the Public Interest” and that’s justification enough not to prosecute, with one’s wealth being inverselly correlated to one’s likelihood of being prosecuted (something indirectly admited by a previous head of the Serious Fraud Office - who are tasked with not just large scale Fraud but also Corruption - when they admitted they could only afford to prosecute as single large case per year) and the same for appealing even court rulings such as the one of the High Court Judge who, when convicting a public school educated criminal (read: so almost certainly somebody who is upper middle class or rich) for the crime of Fraud for the second time, sent him away with a veredict of Guilty but no penalty with the reasoning that “the shame of a conviction is punishment enough”.