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

Hierarchical structure of the court system in England and Wales Hierarchical structure of the courtsystem in England and Wales Structure In England and wales, a total of six hundred magistrate’s courts exist and nearly over thirty thousand magistrates deal with several cases in a single day. In a single year, there are over a million of cases, which occasionally do not involve in any dispute over what the law might be meaning. In such cases, these cases need not be followed by any other magistrate’s courts that lie along the precedent system. The house of lords, in contrast, only deals with approximately sixty cases in a single year. The decision of the house of the lord is used to bind all the decisions to be by any other court in the hierarchy structure (Duplicating 2010, pp.1118–1138). The structure of the courts that lie along all the three jurisdiction are always arranged in accordance to the cases subject matter that have been brought before the court instead of the source of the laws that will be applied in making rulings to the cases. The latter formed a strong basis for a great deal in the whole court structure in England and wales until towards the end of the nineteen-century, but some influence is still seen to date. House of Lords All the other courts in the hierarchical structure of the legal system are bound to any decision and judgments made by the House of Lords. Despite this bond, the decision is only exempted to the House of Lords rulings itself. Previously, the House of Lords used to be bound to its decisions that were made in previous rulings until the practice was changed back in the year nineteen sixty-six. The old practice rationale was that the decision made by the highest court in the country was meant to be final so that certainty in the law would be and henceforth finality in litigation. However, due to changes seen in the social conditions, the law was changed. The current practice, therefore, enables the highest court that is the House of Lords to adapt to the laws of England and wales so that it can be able to meet the ever-changing social conditions. In addition, to enable the structure to be able to pay its attention to the decisions made by the superior courts within the commonwealth. The freedom bestowed upon the House of Lords currently to change its decision that it made previously creates recognition that law, whether it has been expressed in cases or printed in statutes, is considered to be living. Because of this, institutions must change to adapt to the circumstances under which these laws apply if practical relevance of the laws is to be retained. Court of appeal The court of appeal lies second in the ranking of the courts. Its decision is, usually, bound to any decision made in the House of Lords. Despite this, the court of appeal is also bound by its decision that it made previously. However, some exceptions to this general rule do exist and are applied in certain situations. Examples of situations where this exemption do exist include where conflict arises between two previous court’s decisions. In essence, the previous court of appeal decision made by has been overturned by the decision of the house of the lord either expressly or impliedly. Other situations include, where previous decision by the court of appeal was given through an error or in ignorance of certain authority. The court of appeal is also given ground by the European communities act 1972 for ignoring any previous decision it made which may have some conflicts with the current decision made by the European court of justice. Divisional courts These courts termination on the legal basis is not that straightforward. The high court is into three basic divisions. Each of these divisions deals with different kind of cases from the other. The division includes the family division, the Queen’s Bench division that is known to be dealing with cases that involve issues surrounding contracts and negligence and lastly the chancery division that is known to be dealing with money and property cases. These divisions also can act like a court and hear appeals coming from the lower courts in the hierarchy. When the judges from the divisional courts sit in such capacity to hear appeals from lower courts then the court gets a new name and is referred to as ‘divisional court of the high court’. What the division does is to hear any appeal that is coming from any court below them in the hierarchy as well as tribunals below them. The divisional courts do not operate at free will. They are bound to the stare decisis doctrine. In the normal way, its decisions must be in line with the decisions coming from the upper structure in the system. In turn, the divisional courts do bind any court that is below them in a hierarchical structure, and this includes even the high courts that are considered ordinary. The divisional courts just like the previous House of Lords are bound to its previous decisions and judgments, but this only applies to civil cases. In cases of criminal appeal, the division court of the Queen’s Bench may decide not to be guided or to follow the decision it made earlier in the previous ruling. This can be done when it feels there was a wrong decision made in its earlier decision on judgment (Bidram & Davoudi 2012, pp.1118–1138). The high court It is the fourth lowest in the hierarchical structure. The high court is bound to all the decision and judgments that have been made by any other court that lie superior to it in the structure. Any decision that the high courts decide to make is binding to any other court judges to be made that is inferior to the hierarchy structure. The decision of the high courts is always regarded to be strong in persuasion and practice, they tend to be followed. However, in some cases the high court’s judges can disagree on which ruling to take. In such cases, the judges will obviously reach different conclusions as to which law should be in which particular area. This creates a dilemma in the high courts and generates a question on how the high court judge will later select the precedent to follow on what basis because different conclusions were reached. In this scenario, it is usually accepted although not considered to be a rule of law where the decisions to be made has considered the previous judgments. In addition to, and the reason for not follow the decision given, and then the high court judgments should later follow the decision for which a reason was given. It is also common to find that any conflicting decision experienced at the high court is level being solved authoritatively through reference to the higher courts of the hierarchical structure. They use courts of appeal and then if necessary climbs up the ladder to the House of Lords. If the cost of such appeal is borne in the mind, and economic ground issues considered, it is imperative for the high court judges to treat the case with seriousness and not with discretion as a means in which the law of a given area can be destabilized. The high court judge is needed to use the later judgments in cases of conflicting judgments at the higher level of the appeal courts. The rest of the courts that are lower to the high court, their decision are bound to any decision made by all the other courts above them. They include the crowns court, county courts and magistrates. They are not allowed to create any precedent and therefore their decisions can only amount to persuasive authority and not authoritative (James 2006, pp.1118–1138). Court system In England and wales, a precedent is regarded as a baseline of all the common laws. Doctrine of stare decisis is a Latin word that means to adhere to any of the cases already decided is a doctrine that binds precedent. This is to say, in cases where principles are, and conclusion made future cases should, therefore, follow them. The word doctrine is in reference to the fact that the judgments made by the higher courts remain binding on a lower court within the structures of the courts of England wales. In other words, this means that before judges proceed with their decisions to try cases they have to check and find out whether a similar case has been judges previously before the court. The judge presiding over a new case should confirm with the precedent that was set by the court that might be of equal or higher status to it. With the precedent at hand, the judge is supposed to follow the ruling that was made in the previous case. In a scenario where the precedent comes from a lower court according to the hierarchy, what the judge will do in this new case is to consider the ruling but not necessarily following it (Pina-Sánchez & Linacre 2013, pp.1118–1138). In the hierarchy, the court has the liberty to come up with whichever decision that will be binding to the courts. Exemptions and complications to what follows do exist but normally, the courts level in the hierarchy dictates its power. The higher the court the more its decisions becomes authoritative in the sense that when the higher courts make decisions their ruling will bind any court that is down the hierarchy and they will apply the same principle used by the higher court to exercise their ruling. References Bidram, A. & Davoudi, A., 2012. Hierarchical structure of microgrids control system. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3, pp.1963–1976. Duplicating, T.V., 2010. England and Wales High Court ( Patents Court ) Decisions. Europe, 321, pp.1–18. James, D. V., 2006. Court diversion in perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40, pp.529–538. Pina-Sánchez, J. & Linacre, R., 2013. Sentence consistency in England and Wales: Evidence from the crown court sentencing survey. British Journal of Criminology, 53, pp.1118–1138.  Read More