The Structural Hierarchy and the Doctrine of Precedent in England and Wales - Essay Example

?The structural hierarchy and the doctrine of precedent in England and Wales Introduction The judicial system in the United Kingdom is unique and distinct from those found in other developed countries such as the United States and Canada. The country has four kingdoms among them Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England all of which have different judicial systems apart from England and Wales. Welsh court system is uniform with the British system and this explains the existence of one common judiciary, law society and structural function of the law system. The laws used within the two kingdoms are known as the English law was established through acts of parliament in the United Kingdom (Thomas, 2005). The England and Welsh courts have a hierarchical structure that is found within both the criminal and civil courts and represents the different levels of authority within the courts. The supreme court of the United Kingdom is considered as the most superior and senior court in the land that is tasked with high ranking litigations and court cases. These courts are tasked with different roles and constitutional functions within the English jurisdiction. Legal systems are guided to a larger extent by judicial precedents and historical rulings on cases which have striking similarity with the cases at hand. Within the English law and precedent, processing of the applicability and quality of a precedential ruling enables the courts to only apply liable legal rulings that bear similarities to their cases. As stated by the doctrine of binding precedents, the rules and legal laws used in arguing the case in reference must be fully studied and used to form an informed basis of whether to apply the precedent or not (Thomas, 2005). In this paper, the legal system of the Wales and England judicial structures will be analysed to provide their roles as enshrined in the English law enactment of the United Kingdom legislative enactment. The doctrine of precedent and use of previous ruling in the determination of current cases will also be studied, linking the use of the doctrines with the current judicial structures in England and Wales. Hierarchical structure and function of England and Wales judicial systems were enacted by the United Kingdom legislature and assigned different judicial roles as shall be analysed in this section of the paper. United Kingdom supreme court The United Kingdom Supreme Court is considered as the final court of appeal in the country that is tasked with various roles and responsibilities that has ensured the development of the English law. All cases heard by the court, whether they are appeal in nature must have been referred to it by other courts below it. According to Hondius (2007), the United Kingdom Supreme Court is the ultimate court of appeal in the United Kingdom that is allowed to hear all cases from all the four kingdoms in the union. It thus makes determination of cases brought before it from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland after the cases have been referred to it by other courts below it. Apart from high profile civil cases, the court is tasked with the determination of high profile cases of public interest and concern which are beyond the jurisdiction of other courts below it. Apart from the general cases considered of great public interest, the court is also tasked with constitutional interpretation functions especially on cases involving the different kingdoms and their internal governments (Stone, 2009). Appeal courts of England and wales It is considered as the most senior court below the Supreme Court and hears a number of civil cases brought before it by other courts within the land. One of the major roles played by the high court of appeal of England and Wales is the supervision and directional leadership it has over other subordinate courts below (Gillespie, 2007). As a major court within this judicial jurisdiction, the court has three branches tasked with different roles and responsibilities. The Queen’s Bench division, the family division and the chancery division are the main departments within this judicial authority that are allowed to make recommendation for which cases to be forwarded to the Supreme Court. All civil cases before the high court of appeal are heard by the Queen’s Bench division and these are classified according to the laws they affect which include the contract law, personal injury law and the negligence law (Hondius, 2007). The subordinate courts of Wales and England These are considered as the lowest ranking judicial division within the Wales and England judiciary but tasked with major roles including civil and criminal cases. The court is divided into three departments with different legal functions including the magistrate’s courts, the youth courts and the county courts (Oshundeyi, 2011). Magistrate courts use individual judges to hear minor civil cases and the determination of different licensing applications within the local jurisdictions. The youth courts are empowered to hear different civil cases touching on youths and minors below the age of 18. These include family related cases like adoption, parentage and child care arising from parent separation and death (Martin, 2013). The county courts are the only courts within the England and Wales jurisdiction that are empowered to hear purely civil cases with the help of a circuit or district judge. The cases litigated by this branch of the English law include family divorce case and private family issues brought before it including adoption determination (Hondius, 2007). Tribunals and arbitration courts of England and Wales The English arbitration act of 1996 established a number of systems for arbitration of both local and international issues within the United Kingdom. This law established the special, tribunal and coroner courts that were mandated with different legal roles involving employment, leasehold and domestic arbitration roles (Gillespie, 2007). The United Kingdom laws are also allowed by the English laws to develop a dispute resolution committee whenever conflicts arises which may, in the view of the court, consume much time. The dispute resolution committee is tasked to handle legal conflicts between companies that arise from contractual misunderstanding and other general claims brought before it. Other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms also exist within the English laws which include the use of arbitration and mediation as provided by the English arbitration act (Oshundeyi, 2011). Common law and doctrine of binding precedent The United Kingdom judicial system operates through the guiding principles of stare decisis otherwise known as the binding precedent, a doctrine that has influenced the judgments made by different judges. Within this doctrine, the judicial decision made by the judges is influenced by the action of other judges in similar jurisprudence. However, the hierarchal structure of the United Kingdom significantly influences the decisions made and the different levels where judicial precedents are applied (Martin, 2013). The English law of precedents demands that reference to earlier jurisprudence must be made and followed in the subsequent cases that follow. The doctrine of binding precedence requires that the application of this doctrine in any legal decision should not be in any way rigid but must be supported with reasons which can be applied by future lawyers in arguing cases of similar magnitude (Hondius, 2007). Within the country’s judicial system, the House of Lords sit above all the structural hierarchy of the judges and magistrate within the judiciary. Within this structure, the doctrine of precedent follows the ratio decidendi which refers to the portion of precedent which can be used within different court jurisprudence. Making reference to any previous case within this system thus binds only to the judges inferior to the House of Lords. This exception is only applied to the high court of appeal, one of the major courts after the Supreme Court (Gillespie, 2007). The decision of the house of lords is binding to all judges below them and can be used in determining a case whose magnitude can be compared to the one made by the house of lords. As the House of Lords sit on the top hierarchy of the judicial system with the power to make precedential judgments, the county and magistrate courts sits at the very bottom where their rulings cannot be used as a common precedent by the other courts above it. The decisions made by the lower courts are therefore non-binding to any other court that sits above it in this hierarchy (Hondius, 2007). The court of appeal is compelled to make their rulings with reference to the decisions made by the house of lords if the case before it has similar jurisdiction to one earlier determined by the house of lords. This requirement has been followed by the court of appeal until 1972 when the court questioned its blind references to the decision and rulings of the House of Lords. In the Rookes v Barnard case of 1964, the Supreme Court questioned the rationale of its strict adherence to the house of laws rulings when making its decisions (Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, 2002). In the determination of this case, the court of appeal concluded and made its judgment in per incuriam which meant that the rulings of the house of lords was not binding to it (Oshundeyi, 2011). This decision resulted into a rebuking situation in the appeal court was considered to have overlooked an important aspect of the English law. However, future determination established that these requirements were only found within the old House of Lords law and were thus cessante ratione (Gillespie, 2007). Conclusion The structuring of the English law that is binding to both Wales and England provides a proper layout of the different courts within the land and their main roles. Under this hierarchical classification, the House of Lords sits at the top and the county and magistrate courts sits below it. These courts have different constitutional responsibilities which guide their behaviour and the nature of the cases that they can comfortably handle. The common law and the doctrine of precedent also provides basis of making reference to previous rulings made in similar jurisdiction (Hondius, 2007). Within this doctrine however, the house of loads, which sits at the ultimate top is bound by no rule to use the doctrine of precedent in its ruling. Other courts below the House of Lords are required however to make inference to decisions made by the House of Lords in their various ruling except the court of appeal. The judgments made the county and magistrate courts are also not referred to by any court as they sit at the bottom of the hierarchy. References Gillespie, A., 2007, The English legal system. Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press. Hondius, E., 2007, Precedent and the law, electronic journal of comparative law, 11(3), 1-18. Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, 2002, House of Lords Reform: First Report, London: The Stationery Office. Martin, J., 2013, The English legal system, 7th edition eBook ePub, Hachette UK. Oshundeyi, M., 2011, The English judicial system: process of becoming legal professionals, the Ankara bar review. Stone, C., 2009, The doctrine of judicial precedent with special reference to the cases concerning serious ill newborn infants, oxford university press. Thomas, C., 2005, Judicial diversity in the united kingdom and other jurisdiction: a review of research, policies and practice, London: Milbank. Read More