The Court Structure

This article is basically the hierarchy from which the case passes until the final decision is made. This will make you understand all the superior and inferior Courts placed in the Judicial System.

This structure comprises of TWO categories:

1)CRIMINAL COURT STRUCTURE

2)CIVIL COURT STRUCTURE

So lets get started:

Criminal Court Structure :

Firstly to understand the Court Structure you need the knowledge of Criminal Offences.

There are three main types of Criminal Offences

1. SUMMARY OFFENCES:

Summary offences are the offences such as Minor Assault, Battery, Road Traffic Offences. These are minor offences and are dealt in Magistrates Court.

                2) INDICTABLE OFFENCES:

            Indictable Offences are the offences such as murder and grievous bodily harm. These                                            offences                         

            are serious criminal offences and are heard in Crown Court.

3.  OFFENCES TRIABLE EITHER WAY:

 Offences triable either way are the offences such as Theft, Assault, Occasioning actual bodily 

 harm  and Malicious Wounding. These offences can be heard in Magistrates Courts or in

 Crown Courts depending on the choice of the Accused.

Now lets get to the Court Structure and the procedure of Appeal and the cycle of the cases:

Magistrates Courts are the lowest courts of the land. The accused prefer Magistrates Courts because trials are quicker, cheap and can only sentence 6 months imprisonment or fine up to 5000 pounds.

Crown Courts trials are longer and expensive. The acquittal rate is much higher than that of Magistrates Court and  Crown Court judges are more likely to impose longer Custodial Sentences compared to the Magistrates Courts.

The Magistrates Courts also sit as a youth court when dealing with offenders between ages of 10-18 years. These Magistrates receive special trainings and the hearings are Private.

Pre-Trial matters for all cases begin in the Magistrate Court. At the Preleminary Hearing the Magistrates decides matters such as Legal Aid and Bail. Criminal Procedure Rules have been updated to deal with cases efficiently in order to avoid waste of time. If offences are Triable Either Way and Magistrates Court feels that the sentencing power are insufficient then the case can be committed to the Crown Court for Sentence.

Magistrates are also responsible for issuing of warrants and granting bails. There is presumption in Grant of bail that it is usually granted unless there are substantial grounds for believing that the accused if released on Bail will fail to surrender to custody or will commit an offence whilst on bail or will interfere with the witness or obstruct the course of Justice. The court can grant two types of Bails (1) CONDITIONAL BAIL    (2) UNCONDITIONAL BAIL.

WAYS OF APPEAL :

From Magistrates Courts there are three ways of Appeal:

1. A defendant who has pleaded not guilty may appeal as of rights to the Crown Court against Conviction on the grounds of being Wrongly Convicted or too Harshly Sentenced.
2. Either the Prosecution or the Accused may appeal on the grounds that the Magistrates have made an Error of Law or acted outside their Jurisdiction.
3. One can apply for Judicial Review to the Divisional Court Of Queen's Bench and the Administrative Court of the Magistrate has misunderstood the law or acted beyond his Jurisdiction.

THE DECISSION CAN BE QUASHED OR AFFIRMED. IF IT IS AFFIRMED ONE CAN APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT BUT PERMISSION IS REQUIRED.

Appeals for Cases tried in Crown Courts:

1. An Appeal on grounds that involve the facts, the law or the length of the sentence can be made to the Court of Appeal.
2. Accused can appeal to Court of Appeal and from there either the accused or prosecution may appeal on point of law  to the Supreme Court provided that either Court of Appeal or Supreme Court has granted the permission for the appeal plus Court of Appeal certifies that case involves matter of law of general public Importance.
3. Appeals from the Divisional Courts can be made directly to the House of Lords(supreme court) but permission id required. Either Divisional Court or Supreme Court can grant permission on the basis that appeal raises part of law that ought to be considered.
4. The Supreme Court then hears final appeals and the abolition has marked a clear division between the Judiciary and Legislature.

DEFECTS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE THAT THE TRIALS ARE SLOW AND EXPENSIVE.        

    

Civil Court Structure:

Magistrates courts are the lowest Courts in land. It hears very few Civil cases such as straightforward family cases , licensing cases and council tax cases.

Lay Magistrates who are not legally qualified and sit in a bench of three, and district judges who sits alone and are legally qualified sit in Magistrates Court.

Appeals regarding taxation matters are heard by the Chancery Division of High Court.

Appeals in family cases are heard by the Family Division of the High Court.

Appeals in licensing cases are made from Magistrates Courts to Crown Courts.

In County Courts cases are heard by circuit Judges and District Judges. This Court hears matters regarding Contract and Tort, except in large value claims and undefended Divorce Cases. County Court was given power equal to the High Court to reduce workload on High Court.

High court has number of divisions:

Family division

Chancery division

Queen's Bench division ( Cases regarding large value claims in contract and tort, shipping cases and judicial review cases )

Appeals from the County Court and High Court can be made to the Court of Appeal Civil Division. In some cases one an appeal directly to Supreme Court although permission is required. Supreme Court hears both Civil and Criminal Appeals but primarily concerned with Civil Cases, Permission which is required for all this is only granted if case involves a part of law of Public Importance which needs to be interpreted.

RECOGNISED DEFECTS IN CIVIL COURTS ARE COSTS, DELAY, AND COMPLEXITY. THESE DEFECTS WERE ALSO RESOLVED RESULTING IN QUICKER, ECONOMICAL JUSTICE AND INTRODUCTION OF FAST TRACK PROCEDURE.

THE MAGISTRATES COURTS AND TRIBUNAL SERVICE ALSO AIMTO DELIVER JUSTICE EFFICIENTLY BY MANAGING THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS OF BOTH CIVIL COURTS AND CRIMINAL COURTS.  

Read More

THE DOCTRINE OF BINDING PRECEDENT

According to the doctrine of precedent judges must follow previous decisions in future similar cases. Also known as doctrine of '' STARE DECISIS'' stand by what has been decided.

ADVANTAGES :

• Makes law certain, consistent and predictable.
• Makes law easier to follow.
• Parties coming to court knows what to expect from court.
• Useful time saving devices.

DISADVANTAGES :

• One  bad decision lead to so many others.
• Judges may  draw illogical distinctions.
• Makes law rigid and  inflexible.
• Slow down the development of law, since only 50% of the cases are heard in supreme court.

There are three types of precedents :

1) Original Precedent :
     Is law that is laid down where there is no previous decision on a point of law to follow.

2) Binding Precedent :
    Is law that has already been laid down in a previous case that has to be followed in similar cases.

3) Persuasive Precedent :
    Is not binding but can be followed.

There are two parts to judges judgement :

1) RATIO DECIDEND :
    Legal reasons that the judge gives for reaching his decision. This part forms binding precedent.

2) OBITER DICTA :
   By the way statements made by a judge when giving his judgement. This is not binding but can persuasive

For doctrine of binding precedent to operate 2 conditions must be followed:

1) There must be clear hierarchy of court structure and past cases must be recorded properly.

Clear recording of past cases can be obtained as law reports are  available on internet..
Each inferior court must follow the previous decisions of the superior court.

2) House Of Lords is not bound by it's own previous decisions unless one of three exemptions are          made

1. If previous decision of Court Of Appeal is conflicting with previous decisions of House Of Lords.
2. If there are two conflicting decisions of Court of Appeal itself it will choose one which is going to followed in future.
3. The Court Of Appeal can refuse it's previous decisions if it was made through lack of care ( per incurum )

A lower court is not bound to follow the decision of higher courts of the proposition of law was assumed to exist and was not subject to argument or consideration by that court. Precedent binds the divisional court in the same way as Court Of Appeal. House of Lords and Court of Appeal but not bound by it's own decisions. The decisions of Crown Court, County Court and Magistrates Courts  are not binding because they are to follow decisions of superior courts.

There are two International Courts and their  decisions bind all UK courts.

1. The European Court of Justice.
2. The European Court of Human Rights. 

If UK leaves European Union, these are no longer binding. Privy Council is also an International Court but it's decisions are not binding. 

A Judge may avoid following precedent in one of four ways:

1) DISTINGUISHING :
    By finding a material difference in two cases.

2) Overruling :
    A court must have the power to overrule its's previous wrongful decisions.

3) Disapproving :
    A decisions that is disapproved by a higher court is unlikely to be followed in the future.

4) Reversing :
    A higher Court  can reverse the decision of a lower Court so that it is not followed again.

When new facts come to light and there is no Precedent to follow, judges may create a new law as they did in ANHST V BLAND. Hence to conclude, Doctrine of Precedent does make law certain but it also slows down the development of law. 

Read More

COMMON LAW AND EQUITY

English legal system is based on common law and equity. When Normans conquered England, customary was the law of land. Norman decided to replace customary law with judge-made law. They set up Hundred courts that were gradually taken by new Royal Courts. The itinerant judges who traveled from place to place, started applying common set of rules, based on previous customs to govern the land and these rules become known as common law.

There were defects in the common law and people began complaining to the king. The court of Chancery was created to provide justice where common law common law was failed to do so. The lord chancellor was given given the authority to create new rules based on equity, which means fairness, where common law failed to be fair> Then after some cases it was decided that Equity should always prevail over common law which is still true today. 

Later Common Law Courts and Courts of Equity were fused together to form Supreme Court. Today the same Courts apply both Common Law principles and the Equitable Principles in order to provide Justice. Today the same courts apply both common law  principles and equitable principles in order to provide Justice. Due to the defects in Common Law this all was done.

As according to the common law ''Part payment of the debt is never satisfaction for whole amount''. In some cases such as Pinnel's case this proved to be unfair and so Equitable Principle of ''promissory estoppel'' was created in CLPT V HIGH TREES. In this case landlord agreed to accept half the rent for months during war. When  was ended it was held that he should be paid the full rent for the months after the war. Lord Dennings started Obiter that hand the landlord demanded full payment for the months during the war, he would have been 'estopped from going back on his promise because it would have been unfair for him to do do'.

EQUITY HAS PROVIDED JUSTICE BY CREATING CONCEPT OF TRUST.

Judges also created new law that one should be held accountable if his negligent advice causes financial loss to another. As it is fair to hold the maker of the statement liable if he has more knowledge than the the other party or knows that the other party would rely upon his or her advice for financial-well-being. Common law did not recognize any such liability. Judges created rules based on equity due to defects in common law, 
Example:
Judges created equitable remedies because the only remedy provided by common law was damages ( monetary compensation ) and this can be unjust in some cases.

EQUITABLE REMEDIES:

1) SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE :
     Is an order of the court that forces one to carry out his or  her legal duty.

2) PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION :
     Is an order of the court that stops someone from doing a wrongful act.

3) MANDATORY INJUNCTION :
    Requires Defendant to do a positive act to do undone the.

4) FREEZING ORDER ( MAREVA INJUNCTION) :
   This injunction freezes the assets of a debtor so that  he can      not  sell of property until the repayment  of debt.

5) RECTIFICATION :
    Allows a written document to be corrected if it does not            represent  the true intentions of the parties due to a mistake or    fraud.

6) RESTITUTION :
    Order of court to put things right. If one party has obtained an    unfair benefit form another then he must pay back.

7) RESCISSION :
    Awarded if there is a breach of a voidable contract in order to      terminate the contract and restore the parties to their pre-        contractual financial positions.

8) ANTON PILLER ORDER :
    Search order that is obtained before final judgement.

The second in common law was it was based on outdated write system '' no write no remedy'' emphasized on formalities rather than case itself.
Equitable maxim '' Intention , not form''remedied this defect.

EQUITABLE MAXIMS :

1.  HE WHO COMES MUST COME IN EQUITY WITH CLEAN HANDS.
2. DELAY DEFEATS JUSTICE.

IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, I AGREE WITH LORD DENNINGS THAT '' EQUITY WILL NEVER GO BEYOUND THE AGE OF CHILDBEARING IT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE JUSTICE WHEN COMMON LAW FAILS TO DO SO.    

Read More

RELATION BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY.

LAW COMPRISES A SET RULES THAT REGULATE THE CONDUCT RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND RELATIONSHIPS OF THOSE WHO ARE SUBJECT IT.

MORALITY MAY BE DEFINED AS A SET OF BELIEFS, VALUES AND PRINCIPLES THAT A SOCIETY HOLDS.

THERE ARE NO UNIFORM STANDARDS OF MORALITY AND MORAL VALUES OF INDIVIDUALS MAY VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON.
THE THEORIES OF NATURALISTS, POSITIVIST AND LIBERTARIANS REFLECT THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TOWARDS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY.

NATURALISTS POINT OF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVE THAT NATURAL LAW HAS MORALITY AND JUSTICE AS IT BASICS. THEY ARGUE THAT LAW IS AND AND SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH MORALITY AS DIVINE LAW SHOULD PREVAIL. THEY BELIEVE THAT A CIVILIZED SOCIETY COULD ONLY FUNCTION WHEN SENSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS BESTOWED UPON MAN. THE BELIEVE THAT THE PURPOSE OF LAW IS TO PROTECT MORALITY AND THEREFORE UNJUST RULES DO NOT DESERVE TO BE CALLED LAWS. THEY BELIEVE THAT A SOCIETY IS ENTITLED TO PUNISH ANY ACT THAT WEAKENS THE MORAL VALUES OF THE SOCIETY.

• CASE EXAMPLE :

         (KNULLER V DPP)
         KNULLER WAS ADVERTISING HOMOSEXUALITY. EVEN THOUGH                   HOMOSEXUALITY  WAS LEGAL, THE JUDGES HELD HIM LIABLE 
         FOR " OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY ".

POSITIVIST POINT OF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVE THAT LAW SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH MORALITY. THEY ARGUE THAT NO MATTER HOW UNJUST OR MMORAL A LW MAYBE IT IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND AND IT SHOULD BE RESPECTED, OBEYED, AND FOLLOWED. THET BELIEVE THAT LAW IS INDEPENDENT OF MORALITY ALTHOUGH IN CERTAIN CONDITION THEY ALSO ARGUED THAT ONE MIGHT DEFY THE LAW FOR MORAL REASON AS IN " BUCKIKE V GLC ".

NATURALISTS POINT IF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVE THAT HITLERS'S LAWS DURING THE NAZI ERA WERE SO IMMORAL AND UNJUST THAT HIS GENERALS AND EFFORTS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN THE POST-WAR COURTS FOR CRIMES. AND POSITIVIST ON THIS STATED THAT THE LAWS OF NAZI ERA WERE NEVERTHELESS THE LAWS OF LAND AT THAT TIME AND HAD TO BE OBEYED EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE IMMORAL.


LIBERTARIAN POINT OF VIEW:

THEY BELIEVED THAT LAW SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED WITH PRIVATE ACTS OF IMMORALITY. THEY FELT THAT WHAT PEOPLE DID IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES  WAS NOT THE LAWS  BUSINESS UNLESS THEY WERE HARMING THEMSELVES OR HARMING OTHERS.     


DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY:

• LAW CAN BE DELIBERATELY CHANGED WHILE MORALITY CANNOT BE.

• MORALITY INVOLVES SMALL CHANGES BY PEOPLE AND THEY MAY TAKE TIME TO ACCEPT CHANGES WHILE AN ACT CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL CAN BE DECRIMINALIZED OVERNIGHT.

• MORALITY IS VOLUNTARY WITH CONSEQUENCES BUT GENERALLY CARRYING NO OFFICIAL SANCTIONS  ( ALTHOUGH SOME RELIGIONS MAY EXCOMMUNICATE ) AND LAW MAKES CERTAIN BEHAVIOUR OBLIGATORY WITH LEGAL SANCTIONS TO ENFORCE IT.

• BREACHES OF MORALITY ARE NOT USUALLY SUBJECT TO FORMAL ADJUDICATION AND BREACHES OF LAW WILL BE RULES ON BY A FORMAL LEGAL SYSTEM.

IN MY OPINION THE AIM OF THE LAW SHOULD E TP PROTECT BASIC PUBLIC MORALS. ALTHOUGH MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE LAW IS NOT CONNECTED WITH MORALITY. BUT THEY SHOULD THINK THAT THERE ARE SAME LONG-ESTABLISHED RULES THAT ARE MORAL RULES AS WELL AS LEGAL RULES.  

Read More

WHAT IS LAW?

WHAT IS LAW?

RULES AND REGULATIONS PASSED BY A CONSTITUTION FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CONSTITUTION ITSELF AND ARE COMPULSORY TO FOLLOW IS KNOWN AS LAW.

Read More