Which is why there is absolute separation between the fiercely independent judiciary and the government in the UK.
No influence is possible, consider the case of the MP convicted of rape and the fiercely independent judiciary pushing back on character references.
There is no “absolute” separation of the judiciary in the UK. Parliament sovereignty is absolute, which includes the power of rearranging the justice system as it sees fit - as indeed was done when the Supreme Court was established a few years ago. Before the SC was created, the highest court in the land was composed of members of the House of Lords, and the Lord Chancellor (a member of cabinet) was a judge - effectively making the High Court an offshoot of Parliament.
The new Supreme Court is still composed of judges that must be approved by the Secretary of State for Justice (i.e. a government minister, a politician). Technically the appointment is made by the Queen, but overruling an elected minister would be considered an infringement of constitutional prerogatives of Parliament. That means a government can veto high-justices it doesn’t like.
Downstream of that, the judiciary cannot invalidate or overrule primary legislation. Parliament comes first.
What we have in UK is fundamentally a degree of protection of most judiciary elements from the otherwise-supreme power of Parliament. That’s not absolute separation, but rather a partial one - if very extended.
Because one of the key parts of UK law is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty - that parliament is the ultimate source of legal authority. The court cannot overrule parliament by definition, in the same way SCOTUS cannot overrule the Constitution.
