English Legal System: Court Observation Visit - Essay Example

?Topic: English Legal System-Court Observation Visit Affiliation: Introduction Justice is a fundamental aspect of the society. Legal systems are put in place to account for this critical aspect in relation to cultural, social, economic and political pursuits. The legal system that a country observes outlines the rights and freedoms of individuals and the state. Any actions or activities that violate the provisions of the legal system constitute a crime, whether committed by an individual, a group of persons or the state. Courts play a vital role in ensuring that justice prevails at all levels of the nation. There are various types of courts that a state installs, each of which is charged with specific duties and responsibilities in line with its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Justice in England is a specific law enforcing unit in the country. Dispute resolution in relation to high end cases is the sole role of the court. Cases dealt with by the court are referred to it as the court of last resort. Among all appeal courts in the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court of Justice is the highest. Middlesex Guildhall, Westminster is the location where the Supreme Court in England is situated. The building that houses the court is on the opposite side of the Houses of Parliament. The location was agreed upon after intensive deliberations that finally concluded that the court’s current location was informed by United Kingdom’s constitutional change. Court Visited and Observed The court observation visit took place in England, with the court visited being the Supreme Court of Justice in England. The visit took place on the 18th of June, 2012. Specifically the observation took place in court 1, from 10:30 am. Proceedings in the Court At the time of the visit, the case that was being handled was KM (Zimbabwe) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) (Elliot, 2009, p.36). The case had been previously determined but KM went ahead to appeal following his dissatisfaction with the previously passed judgement. KM was seeking asylum in the United Kingdom1. He is a Zimbabwean citizen, aged 54 years. His primary reason to seek for asylum followed the belief that he would be persecuted upon going back to his home country since he had failed to be loyal to Mugabe’s regime. His claim had been previously refused, thereby being required to return to his country. Although he appealed to the decision that required him to leave the United Kingdom, the tribunal that was hearing the case dismissed the appeal. This was in the year 2009; six years after KM entered the United Kingdom. The court proceedings on the 18th of June, 2012 accounted for the above, with the Supreme Court of Justice hearing KM’s appeal following the asylum denial. The Secretary of State representing the United Kingdom’s Home Department was accounting for KM’s stay in the United Kingdom. He had been previously required to leave the United Kingdom for up to six months, with an allowance to re-enter as a visitor (Zander, 2007, p.89). KM’s claims were regarded vague and without critical evidence. The appellate court, however, did not rule out the possibility of underlying risks to KM given the fact that his son had successfully been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court made considerations to have the case remitted to the tribunal for critical evaluation and assessment of KM’s case with regard how credible his argument was in the filed appeal. Parties Involved A number of parties were involved in the case. The first party was the appellant. The appellant in this case is KM. On the other hand there is the respondent. The Secretary of State for the Home Department of the United Kingdom (Bailey, Ching and Taylor, 2007, p.47) was the respondent, and the second party. The third party was the jury and the legal system in the United Kingdom. The case was based on some operational immigration laws that are enforced by the United Kingdom’s legal system. Finally, there was the tribunal. The tribunal had previously dealt with KM’s case, but he was not satisfied with the outcome, thus appealing. Representation of Parties The case brought together all the parties mentioned above, all of whom were actively involved in the court’s pursuit to determine KM’s appeal. To start with, the KM is one of the parties bound to the case. KM was the appellant in the case, and he represented himself in the case with the help of his lawyer. On the other hand, there was the Secretary of State, representing the Home Department of the United Kingdom (Wheeler, 2006, p.91). The Secretary of State was the respondent in the case. The issue between the appellant and the respondent was being heard in the Supreme Court of Justice. In this regard, the other party involved in the case was the court of appeal judges, who represented the legal system of the United Kingdom. Prosecutors were also available to oversee a smooth run of court proceedings, and they represented the judicial procedure that should be followed throughout the case. Lawyers to both sides of the case were also available, representing both the appellant and the respondent when need be. Another critical party to the case were the tribunal representatives; the party whose judgement saw KM file an appeal. KM’s claim for asylum revolves around Zimbabwe’s political turmoil, making Mugabe a virtual party to the case. That is, he was mentioned but never appeared in any of the tribunal and appeal proceedings. Therefore, KM’s beliefs represents Mugabe’s regime. Professionals Involved The case was critical and one that required analysis, evaluation and assessment of all underlying variables prior to the application for asylum by KM. An all-round consideration of the case was essential in a bid to establish the most favourable yet just casing point in all matters that the parties bound to the case raised. For this reason, numerous professionals were brought on board in every aspect that the parties deemed necessary. The professionals involved were from all sides of the case2. That is in both appellate and respondents sides. The state’s side had the jury, state lawyers, legal analysts, immigration laws experts and the Secretary of State who was the respondent in the case (Boylan-Kemp, 2008, p.61). The jury was following up the case in line with the provisions of the law. Legal analysts and immigration law experts were available to assist in interpretation and explanation of provisions of the relevant laws in instances where any of the parties involved had difficulties in relation to any aspect associated with these professionals. The Secretary of State was the respondent in the case, and it is important to point out that acting on behalf of the Home Department was a practice of professionalism. Lawyers could not go unnoticed in the same line, given that they offer legal advice to their clients. Legal Issues Raised A number of legal issues emerged from both sides of the case, as well as within the jury and the judicial system that was dealing with the case3. For the appellant, the legal issue at hand was filing for asylum. An asylum is a practice undertaken to protect citizens of other countries who have evidence of being threatened in their home country (Darbyshire, 2008, p.114). In most cases, many asylum cases are linked to political turmoil that leaves the life of the person seeking for asylum in danger. During the court visit, the asylum that was being sought was of this kind. Granting of asylum is a legal issue that surrounding KM in the Supreme Court of Justice in England. The issue at hand was the credibility of KM’s claim, and the jury was evaluating and assessing KM’s claim to determine whether his case was provided for by asylum laws in England or not. Another legal issue that emerged revolved around the decision made by the court of appeal, requiring that the case be remitted to the upper tribunal. The issue at hand was whether the court’s decision was right or wrong. It is important to note that the case had been determined, only for KM to appeal following the judgment passed. The court of appeal’s argument was that the appellant was not convincing enough, meaning that he failed to reach the threshold that should have allowed him to be granted the asylum. The threshold in this case is a legal issue prior to the decision made by SSHD (Partington, 2006, p.201) to have KM denied the asylum. The court of appeal remitted the case to the tribunal, arguing that it was still in a better position to re-evaluate the risks that KM would face in Zimbabwe, and further make an informed decision in that regard. The appellant, the respondent and the court of appeal jury also faced a legal issue in relation to an earlier asylum that was granted to KM’s son. The issue was to account for KM’s safety in Zimbabwe, given that his son had successfully acquired an asylum in the United Kingdom. KM would have to explain himself about that issue if he was to go back to Zimbabwe. In this regard, while one side argued that KM did not offer adequate proof to his claim and beliefs about being persecuted in Zimbabwe, the jury was concerned that KM would actually face political-based risks back home. Legal imbalances to this issue emerged. Court’s Physical Environment The upper and court of appeal were the two primary legal institutions that were dealing with the case observed in England. The physical environment of the Supreme Court accounts for three legal systems based in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (Elliott and Quinn, 2010, p.109). This court’s physical environment is a representation of constitutional change in the United Kingdom. As a result, justice, accountability and transparency are the pillar drivers that the court should strive to achieve in all its pursuits. In this regard, court proceedings are critically observed to ensure that all variables that define justice, accountability and transparency are observed. All other legal institutions including the upper tribunal can seek complementary information and course of action on matters pertaining to cases that these institutions deal with. The impressions made by the court encompass justice serving in all its case pursuits (Huxley-Binns and Martin, 2010, p.124). A better account of this aspect is the remittance of KM’s case to the upper tribunal, showing that the court does not dominate the justice pursuits but rather accords all other institutions in the legal system their due jurisdictions. Both the tribunal and the court of appeal sought to critically analyse all side of the matter, depicting no provision for biased practices in dealing with local and international cases. Institutions in the English Legal System The English legal system is divided into three legal systems4, namely: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (Ingman, 2004, p.52). Each of these divisions is made up of legal institutions that complement each other in all legal matters. The jurisdiction of each institution in the entire legal system varies, with the Supreme Court being the highest in all the three subdivisions. Appeals filed from lower courts and tribunals are referred to the Court of appeal, the highest court in the English legal system. The court of appeal deals with both domestic and international law (Wilson, Mitchell, Storey and Wortley, 2011, p.313). This aspect explains why KM’s appeal was being heard in the Supreme Court. Criminal and civil disputes that have been dealt with by lower courts and tribunals but challenged through appeals are dealt with by the Supreme Court. The court is the crown of the legal system in the United Kingdom (Slapper and Kelly, 2011, p.180), encompassing all other legal institutions, among them courts, upper tribunal and immigration law institutions in relation to the observed case during the court visit. The primary role of all then mentioned legal institutions is to administrate justice by hearing and determining domestic and international lawsuits. Legal provisions should strictly be adhered to with regard to the foundation of operation and functionality of the English legal system. References Bailey, S. H., Ching, J. P. and Taylor, N. W. (2007).The Modern English Legal System (5th edition), London: Sweet & Maxwell. Boylan-Kemp, J. (2008).English Legal System, London: Sweet & Maxwell. Darbyshire, P. (2008).Darbyshire on the English Legal System (9th edition), London: Sweet & Maxwell. Elliot, C. (2009). “English Legal System –Essential Cases and Materials”. (2nd edition), Harlow: Pearson Longman. Elliott, C. and Quinn, F. (2010).English Legal System (11th edition), Harlow: Pearson Longman. Huxley-Binns, R. and Martin, J. (2010).Unlocking the English Legal System (3rd edition), Westminster: Hodder Arnold. Ingman, T. (2004).The English Legal Process (10th edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Partington, M. (2006).Introduction to the English Legal System (3rd edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. (2011).The English Legal System (112th edition), London: Routledge Cavendish. Wheeler, J. (2006). Essentials of the English Legal System (2nd edition), Harlow: Pearson Longman. Wilson, S., Mitchell, R., Storey, T. and Wortley, N. (2011). English Legal System: directions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zander, M. (2007).Cases and Materials on the English Legal System (10th edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More