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

The Hierarchical Structure Of The Court System In England and Wales The Hierarchical Structure Of The Court System In England and Wales The term English legal system is used to refer to the law of England and Wales. The English legal system bears many distinct features that may not be found in other legal systems. The English legal system embraces the doctrine of separation of powers among the various functions of government. The functions of government are divided between executive, legislature and judiciary with each branch enjoying a degree of independence in conducting its distinct function. The legislature makes laws; the judiciary interprets laws, and the executive enforces laws. The judiciary presents an interesting proposition of the three branches of government. Chadwick (2011) asserts that English legal system is found in common law that among other factors advocates for an organised court system. Courts in England and Wales observe a rigid hierarchy as a consequence of hierarchy of judicial precedents. An important function of the English courts is operating two distinct systems of justice namely the criminal and the civil justice system (Chadwick, 2011). There exists a fundamental distinction between the two systems of justice. The criminal justice system concerns with enforcing criminal law in criminal courts employing its unique criminal procedures. Criminal law is known as the law of the state and falls under public law. Criminal law is meant to protect the public by prohibiting specific forms of conduct and punishing the offenders (Chadwick, 2011). Cases that have a criminal element are heard first in the crown court or the magistrates’ court. The civil justice system is designed to handle matters that are civil in nature in civil courts. Civil law is the law among individuals that are essentially private law. Civil cases are principally tackled in the high court and county courts. The size and complexity of a particular matter determine where the matter will be heard. Gillespie (2013) observes that courts in England and Wales adhere to a specific hierarchical order. On the top most of the hierarchy is the supreme court of the United Kingdom. This is a modern supreme court established by constitution reform act of 2005, and it replaced the House of Lords. It is constituted by 12 professional judges appointed by members of the House of Lords (Gillespie, 2013). The court is the highest appellant court and court of the last resort in all matters under the English law, Wales’s law as well as Northern Irish law. The court bears authority over criminal cases in Scotland. In addition, the court has jurisdiction over appeals from the Civil Court of Session just as the House of Lords did previously (Gillespie, 2013). The court of appeal is the second in the hierarchy and has civil and criminal divisions. It is the highest court within the Senior Courts of England and Wales. The civil division of the court of appeal hears appeals from the high courts, tribunals and county courts. On the other hand, the criminal division hears criminal appeals from the Crown Court (Gillespie, 2013). The court of appeal is made up of a total of 38 judges headed by the lord chief justice. The High Court comprises of three divisions, the chancery, Queens’s bench and family division with each carrying distinct type of cases. The Chancery Division consists 18 high court judges with the Chancellor of the High Court acting as the chairman. Among the matters heard in the Chancery, division is equity and trusts, bankruptcy and business and trade disputes (Gillespie, 2013). The Queens’s bench is presided over by the president of the Queens’s bench and comprises 73 high court judges. The matters heard in the Queen bench are civil in nature and entail business actions in common law. The court also hears matters that are tortuous in nature. Judges sitting in the family division can hear all matter involving children and have exclusive jurisdiction over matters touching on a wardship. The family division also hears all appellant matter of a family nature from family proceedings courts (Gillespie, 2013). Ingman (2010) asserts that the main reason why courts in England and Wales follow a hierarchical order is due to the doctrine of judicial precedent. The doctrine of judicial precedent provides that every court be bound to follow a decision of the court above it in the hierarchy. Judicial precedent is a source of law where the decisions of the previous judges are used by future judges to determine a particular case (Ingman, 2010). When a judge is exerting the judicial mind to make an interpretation of the law, one is bound by the law of the binding precedent. A binding precedent is a precedent from an earlier case in a higher court, which the judge must follow irrespective of whether the judge does not agree with the principle of the precedent. For a binding precedent to attach, the facts of the second case must be sufficiently similar to the original case. A persuasive precedent is one that does not bind a judge to use it, but can be used to arrive at a conclusion (Ingman, 2010). The English system of precedent is established from a Latin maxim that when translated means to stand with decisions made, and not to unsettle the established. Judicial precedent creates certainty in the law and fairness. Judicial precedents fall short due to the rigidity and rigidity of the system. A bad decision may be allowed to pass down the line due to the binding nature of precedents. Lower courts are mandated to follow the decisions of the higher courts. In addition, the system may be complex where many cases have been decided, and it is required to trace the right precedent to base a decision. The hierarchy of the court in England and Wales uphold the principle of judicial precedent in determining decisions before the courts (Ingman, 2010). Adams (2014) demonstrates how the courts of England and Wales follow the doctrine of judicial precedent. Judicial precedent adheres to the hierarchical order of the courts of England and Wales and at the top most is the supreme court of the United Kingdom formerly the House of Lords. The decisions of the Supreme Court binds all court below since it is the final court of appeal. In addition, the Supreme Court is bound by its decisions unless a decision was reached at through lack of care or per incuriam (Adams, 2014). It can only depart from its decision to prevent an unjust decision from taking precedent. The court of appeal being below the supreme court of England is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court as well. However, the decisions of the court of appeal bind all civil courts beneath it. The court of appeal can only depart from its previous decisions under any of the three exceptions set out in the case of Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company [1944]. The exceptions are if the decision was reached per incuriam or where a previous contradicts a decision of the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court must have precedent. In addition, where two decisions of the court of appeal are in conflict, it must choose which one to follow. The one that is not chosen ceases to be good law. Judges of the high court are bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and the court of appeal. However, the judges are not bound to follow the decisions of their fellow high court judges. The decisions of the high court are binding on the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts and the county courts (Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company [1944]). Slorach, Embley, Goodchild and Shephard (2013) outline other judicial forums available in England and Wales. The European court of human rights based in Strasburg is where a citizen of England and Wales can file a case seeking compensation for a breach of personal rights and freedoms. The decisions of the European Court of Human rights are binding on the supreme court of England. The decisions of the European Committee of the Privy Council do not have any binding precedent on courts of England and Wales (Slorach et al., 2013). In addition, the Privy Council has any appellant capacity to hear any matter within the English legal system. The Privy Council only hears matters touching on the appeals from the Commonwealth countries. Tribunals are set by statute to hear a specific type of a case within England and Wales for instance employment tribunals. Tribunals are less formal than courts and bringing a claim in a tribunal is cheaper and faster. Employment tribunals mainly deal with employment disputes and their appeal fall to the employment appeal tribunals and subsequently the court of appeal. The hierarchy of precedents also applies to tribunals (Slorach et al., 2013). In conclusion, the model of the legal system of England is one that is founded on practices and customs dating a thousand years. The laws of England and Wales are uncodified and have developed from customs over a long period. As a result of this, concepts such as binding precedent and a hierarchy of courts mark the English Legal System. In order to have a successful claim in England and Wales, the right knowledge of the court hierarchy and precedent is indispensable. References Chadwick, A. (2011). The English Legal System. Brighton: Emerald Gillespie, A. (2013). The English Legal System. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Ingman, T. (2010). The English Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Slorach, J. S., Embley, J., Goodchild, P., & Shephard, C. (2013). Legal Systems & Skills. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Adams, A. (2014). Law For Business Students. London: Pearson Education Limited. Young v Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited, [1944] 1 KB 718, Court of Appeal retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/youngv.htm Read More