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

Hierarchical Structure of the Court System in England and Wales Introduction In comparisonto most countries around the world, the hierarchical structure of the United Kingdom courts is rather complicated. This is attributed to the UK being a European Convention on human rights signatory and union of four separate jurisdictions namely; Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and mainland England. In the UK, court hierarchy establishes the binding power of decisions and to which courts, which is commonly referred to as the doctrine of precedent. This essay will look at how far this doctrine applied in England and Wales. England and Wales court structure The UK does not have a unified court system in that England and Wales share one system whilst Scotland and northern Ireland each have got two distinct judicial systems. This essay is more concerned with the court hierarchy system in England and Wales, which comprises of: Magistrates’ court these courts are local with seating both qualified and lay magistrates that hear mainly criminal but also civil matters before them at first instance. County courts are staffed by a circuit judge or a district judge and they are all over England and Wales hearing civil matters. The crown court sits to hear criminal matters and may use jury during the trial process. These courts sit in various parts of England and Wales, sittings which are presided over by a circuit judge or a district judge. The high court of justice this court mainly hears civil matters but it also has criminal jurisdiction. It has its sittings in London although this is not permanent since the court may hear cases before it held anywhere in England and Wales. The High Court of Justice is divided into three divisions i. Family division including its divisional court hears appeals from magistrates courts. ii. Queen’s Bench division hears commercial matters, incorporating and administrative court. iii. Chancery division hears civil cases on appeal from the county courts Each of these divisions has different types of work they undertake that notwithstanding they also have jurisdiction to hear appeals from lower courts and a judge sitting in this capacity, the court is referred to as ‘divisional court of the High court’. The divisional courts hear appeals from tribunals and courts below them in the hierarchy. During the High Court sittings, it is presided over by the High Court Judges. Court of appeal this court has two divisions the civil division, which hears civil cases on appeal, which have primarily emanated from High Court and the criminal division hearing criminal cases on appeal from the crown court. This court sits in London with senior judges –Lord Justices of Appeal- presiding. The Supreme Court this is the final court of appeal of all civil and criminal cases in England, Northern Ireland and Wales since 1st October 2009. Cases reaching before it must have gone through relevant procedures in a lower court. The Supreme Court has 12 justices who are separate from both parliament and government. Other influential courts (Slapper, Gary, and David 163 - 183) Common law doctrine of binding precedent in court hierarchy The basis of this doctrine is the principle of stare decisis which requires that a later court to use the same reasoning as an earlier court; in essence a particular set of facts should give rise to a particular legal outcome therefore the fairness principle means that cases with similar facts should be similarly decided (Malleson, 66 -67). The court hierarchy is central to the understanding of this doctrine in the sense that the higher the courts’ position the more far-reaching are the effects of its decisions generally. The lower courts are described to be bound by the decisions of higher courts. This means that the lower court will follow the decisions of the highest court this feature of courts is described as binding precedent. Rules of Binding precedent as they apply 1. The House of Lords In England and Wales, court system hierarchy the house of lords binds all courts and it usually follows it’s own decisions but does not formally bind itself partly because of the practice statement 1966 ,the Lord chancellor announced that the house would depart from previous decisions where it appeared right to do so or unjustifiable in a previous decision.In shuvpuri [1986] ,the House of Lords departed from its decision in Anderton v Ryan [1985] on grounds that decision in the latter case had seriously distorted the law by not using the literal rule of statutory interpretation thereby, failing to apply the plain meaning of the words in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. 2. The court of appeal The court of appeal is generally bound by decisions of the House of Lords but, may overturn them if a relevant statute has been passed since the previous decision was made. In Ghaidan v Mendoza [2004], this occurred .The civil division of this court is obliged, subject to three exceptions, to follow its own previous decisions. This rule is however, not followed so rigidly in the criminal division reason behind being an individual’s liberty is regarded as being more important than consistency. This principle was established in young v Bristol airplane Co [1944] with exceptions being that the court of appeal has made two conflicting decisions, it may choose between them and the choice will be binding in the future. Second, if the court has made a previous decision that is inconsistent with the house of lords’ decision. Lastly, if the court has made a decision per incurring what and stocks [1921], holding that the previous decision had been made per incurring. The court of appeal binds all courts below it in the hierarchy. 3. The divisional courts of high court This court is bound by decisions of the House of Lords and the court of appeal and generally by their own decisions, subject to the same grounds as of those available to court of appeal. Their decisions are binding on all courts below them in the court hierarchy as well as on the high court. 4. The High Court The high court is bound by all courts above it and binds all those courts below it. It is not bound by its own previous decisions, but such decisions remain to be strongly persuasive. 5. The Crown Court The crown court does not create binding precedent, though its decisions may be persuasive precedents. 6. The Magistrates’ Courts and County Courts The crown court does not create binding precedent, they should, in practice, decide similar cases in similar ways. 7. Other influential courts The judicial committee of the Privy Council often hears appeal cases from some foreign courts. Its decisions are not binding on itself or any other court but respect is adorned given the status of the court in games; Karimi [2006] the court of appeal decided to follow the JCPC instead of the conflicting decision in the House of Lords. This was exceptional however as the court of appeal is bound by the house of lords. The European court of human rights decisions is persuasive. This Court makes decisions involving the European convention on human rights which was made binding on all UK courts by HRA 1998 (Bond, Tim and Amanpreet 117). Relationship between the court system in England and Wales and the Common Law Doctrine of binding precedents Evidently, the hierarchical structure of the court system in England and Wales engages the common law doctrine of binding precedent to large extents. The term common law refers to a law which is created through judges’ decision in the courts in a particular case(Adams 118). Such a decision eventually sets a precedent or a basis on which other decision of the same issue will be made in the future. Thus, the common law system is based on the doctrine of judicial precedent. This is based on the principle of stare decisis which implies that lower courts must follow and take account of the decisions made by higher courts in instances where the facts of the case are substantially similar. For this reason, it is necessary and important to analyze the hierarchy of the courts and their interrelations so as to understand the development of common law. In regard to the system of precedent, decision made by the Supreme Court are binding on all the courts in the legal system with the exception of the Supreme Court itself. This implies that the decisions made by the Supreme Court are generally binding on the Supreme Court itself but is able to depart from the previous decision where it appears right to do so. Secondly, the Court of Appeal is bound by previous decisions of the Supreme Court. In addition, the court of appeal is also bound by its own previous decisions except in the following instances: a) Where there exists a conflict between two previous decisions of the Court of Appeal. b) Where a previous decision made by the Court of Appeal has been overruled by the Supreme Court. c) Where the previous decision was arrived at in ignorance of some case law authority that would have resulted to a different conclusion d) Where the previous decision made is inconsistence with the European community law. Thirdly, the system of precedent provides that Divisional courts of the High Court must follow decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court Of Appeal. In addition, they are bound by their own previous decisions. However, in criminal appeal cases, the Queen’s Bench Divisional court is obliged to refuse to follow its own earlier decisions in instances where it fees that the earlier decision was reached by error of court(Adams 138). On the other hand, High Courts are bound by the decision of superior courts. In addition, decisions made by individual High Court judges are binding on courts inferior in the hierarchy. However, in instances where the case is being heard before the High court at first instance, the High Court is not bound by other first instance decisions. In the system of precedent, inferior courts include courts such as the Magistrate Courts, County Courts as well as tribunals. These courts are not bound by their own decisions. However, the are bound by the decisions of al relevant superior courts. This implies that tribunals and other inferior courts can decide two similar cases in two different ways. As a general rule, the doctrine of precedent provides for cases to be decided the same way when the legal principle involved is similar and the material facts are similar as well.however, in the application of the doctrine of precedent, difficulties are experienced in deciding what is the binding element of a particular judgement. This call for the distinction between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. In this regard, it is only the ratio decidendi that has a binding effect. Ratio decidendi refers to the potentially binding element of a decision that is formed by the material facts and the decision that are based on those material facts. On the other hand, obiter dicutum is a statement of law that is based on facts in a case but it does not necessarily form the basis of the decision (Adams 152).. For this reason, if the judge finds it fit to give his opinion regarding some point which arises in the proceedings but not for the decision of the case, such an opinion lack s the binding authority on another court. A dissenting judgement refers to an opinion that disagrees with the courts’ overall disposition of a case. Thus, such judgement may not have the binding authority but may have persuasive effect in other cases. In several instances, the case is heard by more than one judge and therefore there can be fully assenting and dissenting judgements in a single case. As a general rule, cases are determined by the majority view. It should however be noted that there are various occasions when a precedent will not be followed. The first instance is referred to as distinguishing the facts. As mentioned earlier, a precedent is only set if the material facts in one case are similar as another which follows it. Thus, is the material facts from an earlier case differ in the second case, the case does not have to be decided in the same way as the first. This is what is referred to as distinguishing a case on its facts. This may be used by the judge as a device to avoid consequences on an earlier inconvenient decision, which would otherwise be having a binding authority on him. The second occasion when a precedent will not be followed is referred to as overruling. A higher court may overrule a decision made in an earlier case by a lower court. For instance, the court of appeal can overrule and earlier High Court decision. In most instances, overruling occurs in instances where the previous court failed to correctly apply the law. Thirdly, the doctrine of precedent may not be applicable in instance where there is a reversing decision. This refers to the overturning on appeal by a higher court of the decision of the court below that is hearing the appeal. In such instances, the court substitutes its own decision. Fourthly, a decision is not a binding precedent is given per inuriam. This implies a decision made without the courts ‘attention having been drawn to the relevant statutes. Finally, the doctrine of precedent may not apply in persuasive precedents. This refers to a precedent which is not absolutely binding on a court but may nonetheless be applied. For instance, the Supreme Court may follow a Court of Appeal’s decision although it is not strictly bound to do so. Conclusion As sustained from the foregoing analysis, the hierarchical court system of England and Wales is comprised of the Magistrates’ Court, the County Court, the Crown Court, the High Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal, and finally, the Supreme Court. it is evident that the hierarchical structure of the court system in England and Wales engages the common law doctrine of binding precedent to large extents. Thus, when making decisions on cases, it is important to consider the weight and possible binding effect of the decision of a particular court. Works cited Adams, Alix.(2012). Law for Business Students(7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print. Slapper, Gary, and David Kelly. English Legal System, 2011-2012: 2011-2012. London: Routledge, 2011. Internet resource. Malleson, Kate. The Legal System. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Bond, Tim, and Amanpreet Sandhu. Therapists in Court: Providing Evidence and Supporting Witnesses. London: Sage, 2005. Internet resource. Read More