The Hierarchical Structure of the Court System in England and Wales - Essay Example

? ASSESSMENT OF THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN ENGLAND AND WALES, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT ENGAGES WITH THE COMMON LAW DOCTRINE OF BINDING PRECEDENT by Author’s Name Name of Class Name of Professor Name of School City, State 16 September 2013 Introduction Just like other legal systems around the world, the legal system in present day Britain differentiates between criminal law and civil law. In England and Wales, the court system is branched into courts dealing with criminal jurisdiction and courts dealing with civil jurisdiction. However, certain courts such as the High Court, some Crown Courts and the Magistrate Court deal with both forms of jurisdiction. The court system is a hierarchical structure that begins from the bottom at the County Courts and Magistrate Courts, the High Court and Crown Court, the Court of Appeal, and the highest court which is the Supreme Court (Jones, 2011). The hierarchical structure serves two fundamental purposes. First, it enables the formation of a lineage of consistent and uniform decisions through the binding system of judicial precedent, which requires judges at lower courts to consider and follow decisions of judges at higher courts in making their judgements. Second, it enables defendants to appeal against decisions made at lower courts by forwarding their appeals to higher courts. This paper discusses the hierarchical structure of the court system in England and Wales, and the extent to which it engages with the common law doctrine of binding precedents. The Structure of the Court System in England and Wales The court system in England and Wales is hierarchical in structure (Jones, 2011). This “means that certain courts are superior to other courts” (Jones, 2011, p. 17). The lowest courts, which are the County and Magistrate Courts, try civil and criminal cases that are not too serious respectively. At the second rank are the Crown Court and the High Court. The Crown Court tries criminal cases, while the High Court tries civil cases with a limited scope over criminal cases. This rank is followed by the Court of Appeal. This court hears appeals from both civil and criminal cases that have been tried at lower levels be it at Magistrate or County Courts, Crown Court or the High Court. At the highest tier of the system is the Supreme Court. This court is the ultimate appellate court and hears appeals for both civil and criminal cases (Jones, 2011). In this structure, Magistrate and County Courts are regarded as inferior courts, while the rest of the courts are regarded as superior courts (Jones, 2011). The courts in the hierarchy follow the doctrine of binding precedent, and this can be seen from the way cases are handled between lower and higher courts. The following diagram shows the structure of the English court system: Cited in Jones, 2011, p. 17 Magistrate Courts Magistrate Courts are located at the bottom of the hierarchy. Within England and Wales, there are about 1500 Magistrate Courts (Jones, 2011). They are a crucial component of the criminal justice system, as they deal with cases that are criminal in nature. Magistrate Courts have three lay magistrates who hear the cases brought before the court and rely on the counsel of a Clerk, who is legally qualified in providing advice on the law, to make decisions regarding procedure and sentencing (Jones, 2011). The jurisdiction of a Magistrate Court in a criminal trial depends on the nature of the offence, often its seriousness. This is the yardstick used to determine whether a case should be heard at the Magistrate Court or Crown Court. When a case before the magistrate court is too serious, or when the sentence that the magistrates need to impose needs to be sufficiently severe, the case is forwarded to the Crown Court. County Courts County Courts also lie at the bottom of the hierarchy. There are approximately 220 County Courts in England and Wales, which deal with cases involving civil disputes (Jones, 2011). The bench of a County Court comprises of a Circuit Judge who hears more complex cases involving large claims exceeding 15,000 pounds, and a District Judge who hears less complex cases involving small claims procedure, and whose limit does not exceed 5,000 pounds (Jones, 2011). Cases that can be brought before a County Court include, “matters involving contract, tort, landlord and tenant, mortgages, wills, trust, bankruptcies, insolvency and divorce” (Jones, 2011, p. 25). The jurisdiction of the County Courts over a civil matter can however be determined on the basis of the complexity of the matter at hand, the remedies available at the court in comparison with the High Court, the facts and legal procedures involved, and the value of the case. Where either of these is beyond the County Courts, the case can be commenced at the High Court (Jones, 2011). Crown Court The Crown Court lies within the second tier of the hierarchy. The most serious of the criminal offences which are the indictable offences such as murder, rape, and manslaughter are heard at the crown court (Jones, 2011). A defendant, who has been found guilty at the Magistrate Court appeals to the Crown Court, if he or she had pleaded not guilty, or on the grounds of fact or law against the court ruling. The Crown Court therefore has both a criminal and appellate jurisdiction. It is considered as a solitary court. Within England and Wales, there are 78 centres that serve as the Crown Court (Jones, 2011). High Court The High Court also lies within the second tier of the hierarchy. The High Court of Justice in England and Wales is convened at “the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London” (Jones, 2011, p. 26). The court also seats provisionally in major centres in some cities for the convenience of advocates and complainants. The High Court is divided into 3 divisions, namely; the Chancery Division, the Queen’s Bench Division, and the Family Division. The Chancery Division hears cases that deal with “trusts, mortgages, finance, administration of the estates of deceased persons, and company law” (Jones, 2011, p. 26). The Queen’s Bench Division tries cases dealing with the law of torts and the law of contracts, and cannot be heard at County Courts, due to the jurisdiction. The third division, which is the Family division, hears cases dealing with nuptial and marital disputes, as well as family issues such as child legitimacy, defended divorces, and adoption. According to Jones (2011), “each Division has a Divisional Court, which hears cases on appeal from other courts and tribunals” (p. 26). Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal lies at the third level of the hierarchy. It is also situated at the Royal Courts of Justice in London; the Ordinary in the Court has 37 Lords of Appeal, who preside over cases brought before it (Jones, 2011). The court has 2 divisions, each receiving appeals of a different nature. These are the civil division, which handles appeals from the County Courts and the High Court, and the criminal division, which deals with appeals from the Crown Court. During appeals however, no new evidence or witnesses are submitted. The civil division is chaired by the Master of the Rolls, while the criminal division is chaired by the Lord Chief Justice (Jones, 2011). Supreme Court The Supreme Court lies at the top level of the hierarchy. It is the highest of the superior courts in England and Wales convening in London. It is also the highest appellate court, and has a fundamental role in the growth and elaboration of English Law. It is the ultimate and concluding court of appeal in England and Wales on all civil and criminal subjects, dealing with appeals from both the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal (Jones, 2011). Permissions to present a case before the Supreme Court can be given either by the last court to hear the case, or by the Supreme Court itself (Jones, 2011). The Doctrine or Precedent According to Huxley-Binns and Martin, the doctrine of precedent simply refers to the fact that when issuing a verdict over a particular matter before a court, a judge can refer to past judgements made regarding the same matter in another court, so as to direct and validate the ruling that he or she makes (2010). This is in addition to his or her knowledge and experience, as well as the section of the law in terms, or rules and procedures that guide the judgment in such instances. For lower courts particularly, when the judge has knowledge of a legal principle set in a higher court in a similar case, they are bound to follow the principle of that ruling, in a system known as the doctrine of binding precedent (Huxley-Binns and Martin, 2010). Chadwick states that judicial precedent is “a source of law where decisions of judges in the past create law for future judges to follow” (2011, p.24). The principles of precedent include original precedent, binding precedent and persuasive precedent. Original precedent holds that in a case where decisions have not been made before with regard to a particular point of law in a case, the ruling that the judge makes in the case forms precedent for future judges to rely on (Chadwick, 2011). Binding precedent holds that when the facts of a present case are adequately comparable to those of a past case, the judge in the present case must follow the ruling made, even if he or she does not agree with the verdict that was passed (Chadwick, 2011). Persuasive precedent does not compel the judge to follow past rulings, but he may consider them, and if he feels that the principle adhered to was correct, then he can follow the decision (Chadwick, 2011). Such precedent comes from sources such as “courts lower in hierarchy, statements made obiter dicta, dissenting judgements” (Chadwick, 2011, p.26). As mentioned earlier, the hierarchical structure of the court system in England and Wales is one of the core elements of the doctrine of binding precedent. This is because as stated by Slapper and Kelly, the decisions made in a higher court are binding on any court that is at a lower level within the hierarchy of courts, when the subject matter and facts of a case are adequately similar (2011). If a precedent is set by a court that is within a higher or equal tier in the hierarchy of the courts, then a judge making a decision in a lower or equal court is bound to follow the ruling made, in both criminal and civil cases. Where the precedent is set by a court that is lower within the hierarchy of courts, the judge within the higher court is not bound to follow the ruling, but should consider the ruling as if it forms a basis for persuasive precedent (Slapper and Kelly, 2011). Harris states that the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal hold the most weight in determination of precedents (2006). As such, a ruling made in the Court of Appeal is binding on all lower courts including the High Court and Crown Court, the County Courts and Magistrate Courts. However, is not binding on the Supreme Court. A ruling made in the Supreme Courts is binding on all courts, since it is the most superior court in England and Wales, while a decision made in the County or Magistrate court is not binding on any courts above it (Harris, 2006). In this same light, decisions made within a court are not necessarily binding on the court itself. For example, decisions made in Magistrate courts are not binding on other Magistrate Court decisions. However, rulings should show some consistency. The High Court on the other hand does not bind itself by decisions, but High Court Judges regularly refer to judgments made by other High Court Judges in determination of cases, unless there is sufficient cause not to do so (Harris, 2006). Conclusion The doctrine of binding precedent is inseparable from the hierarchical structure of the court system in England and Wales. It promotes consistency in judicial procedures and judgements, which provides a sense of equality, fairness, and justice. Bibliography Chadwick, A. ed., 2011. The English Legal System. Yorkshire: Straightforward Publishing. Harris, P. ed., 2006. An Introduction to Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huxley-Binns, R. and Martin, J. eds., 2010. Unlocking the English Legal System. New York: Routledge. Jones, L., 2011. Introduction to Business Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. eds., 2011. The English Legal System: 2011-2012. New York: Routledge. Read More