The Role of the Rule of Law in the Criminal Justice Process in the UK - Essay Example

The Role of the Rule of Law in the Criminal Justice Process in the UK Introduction In the British Criminal Justice System, divisions like the Crown Prosecution Sector, the police, the law courts and the prisons operate together to bring about criminal justice. In general, the three departments are mutually responsible for the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and its subdivisions. These three consist of (i) The Ministry of Justice, which is concerned with the magistrates' law courts, the Appeals Courts, the Crown Court, the National Offender Management Service, and the Legal Services Commission (ii) The Home Office under whose jurisdiction are the police (iii) The Attorney General's Office which is in charge of the Serious Fraud Department, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Customs and Revenue Prosecutions Division. In ordinary circumstances, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice to oversee the entire justice procedure (Roberson, Wallace and Stuckey, 2009). It is responsible for justice being meted out from the time when a suspect is apprehended, to the time they are charged with a crime and incarcerated (if this is the result) (Schmalleger, 2009). The Ministry of Justice also plays a role in a felon’s probation process. The ministry is also expected to provide legal aid, and seek to decrease the chances of re-offending. The Home Office, on the other hand, is responsible for safeguarding the public from instances of crime, terror and other anti-social behaviours. The home office ensures people’s safety in order to facilitate investment and peaceful coexistence. It also promotes the acceptable level of tolerance that allows people to live with others from different backgrounds without there being unnecessary problems that come about through misunderstandings. This division is responsible for counter terrorism initiatives, safe policing and overall crime reduction strategies. The Attorney General, who is usually assisted in handling these responsibilities by the Solicitor General, is the key legal counsel to the British Government (McLeod, 2010). Both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General are responsible for making sure that all citizens uphold the rule of law.  The Attorney General also has additional public interest responsibilities such as committing to objecting to extremely lenient sentences that are given to serious criminals, as well as initiating proceedings in courts concerning the Contempt of Court Act (Zander, 2007). The function of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is to bring all to justice by convicting and imprisoning the felons while defending the public. It is also in charge of investigating crimes and making sure that the perpetrators are held accountable for their crimes (Packer, 1968). The CJS also carries out other functions such as executing court orders, collecting fines and overseeing custodial as well as community punishment.  The main objectives for the CJS are:  •      To enhance their efficiency in bringing crimes and their perpetrators to justice.  •      To boost public confidence in the way the CJS conducts its operations  •      To make crime victims feel that their grievances have been satisfactorily addressed by the Police unit as well as the CJS.  •      To constantly gather, evaluate, and make use of statistics concerning different ethnicities so as to identify irregularities in the distribution of responsibilities in the CJS.  •      To increase the finding of criminal factors so that the public is made aware that criminals will not go unpunished (Sanders and Young, 2000). While not all the members of society are predisposed to crime, such a step will help in discouraging potential criminals. The Basic Concept Underlying the Rule of Law In the 19th and 18th British society, many individuals who belonged to the upper classes were not treated in the same way as the rest of the British citizens. If they committed any crimes, they had special government laws that would be used to judge their cases resulting in them being more privileged than the rest. The modern British law is meant to ensure that all British citizens are served by the law in a similar manner (Wallace and Roberson, 2011). In essence, the democratic system that has been embraced by Britain can only be executed in a society where all people are equal in the eyes of the law. The rule of law is a basic principle used in the British constitution. It is safeguarded by the British parliament, which is made up of people who are selected by the British public (Smartt, 2008). The rule of law is the basic framework of regulations and liberties that make affluent and fair state a possibility. In 1885, in the text ‘the Law of constitution’, Dicey described the ‘Rule of Law’ as covering some three aspects: 1) The superiority of the normal law over any arbitrary power 2) The fact that all citizens are equal under the law and should be judged as such 3) The fact that the standard law forms the frameworks of the constitution The rule of Law represents the undisputed superiority of the common law and seeks to establish a realm in which all citizens observe the statutes of the law. It has not been executed in Britain to its full extent. Legally speaking, the topmost members of the upper classes are exempt from the rule of the law. The Queen, For example, cannot be summoned by any court of law. No can she be subpoenaed or compelled to appear in court in order to give evidence. This may be viewed as a throwback to the era in which the Royal Family had substantial power in the British realm. In addition, in 1947’s Crown Proceeding Act, the government’s representatives are permitted certain civil liberties (Ormerod, 2009). This is yet to be addressed. Moreover, the Rule of Law holds every other citizen accountable for his or her actions. The rule of law can be utilised as a check for directorial power within the British constitution. In its three principles, the following provisions are met: (i) No citizens can be imprisoned unless they have first been convicted of a crime by a recognised law court (Ormerod, 2010). In other words, no citizen can be punished unless it is proven without a doubt that there has been a breach of one of the rules that is given under the law. If a crime exists, it must be proved in a law court the rule that was broken when the crime was committed. No British citizen may be arrested, unless he or she is charged with breaking a certain law in a court (Padfield, 2003). This aspect of citizens being ruled by recognised laws is what enables citizens to conduct their lives without the fear of being arrested because a figure in authority or a powerful personality dislikes them. By forcing the ruling parties as well as the people in the positions of authority to observe the law, they are enabled to consider the full penalties of their actions prior to carrying out acts of civil disobedience. Without this aspect, people would not be able to understand what the consequences of their actions might be. Dicey commented in the last century, “What is law-legal correct and an officially authorised requirement for me- must be the same for other citizens (Johnstone and Ward, 2008). He lived in a society where the upper classes enjoyed privileges that were not shared by the poor (Zander, 2005). The existence of the rule of the law is not practical if the laws offer unlimited immunity to some esteemed people or factions. In addition, even though the probability that a person would be personally affected by an individual that has immunity is low (Hickey and Straugnah, 2005). It is actually the lack of this law that makes it almost impossible for people to grow their well in legal ways in states that are not governed by the rule of law. This is because if an underprivileged member of society comes up with innovative ideas and makes a good income in one of hi s or her projects, the people who enjoy personal immunity could just decide to possess this business even if they did not create it. (ii) The general rules in the constitution do not originate from the proclamations of presidents or kings. They come from judgments delivered in specific cases by judiciaries that are independent. The Rule of Law is the outcome of judicial decisions regarding individual rights of citizens (Herring, 2012). Therefore, the British constitutional law emanates from the normal law of the land. Though the rule of law brings many benefits to legal residents, illegal residents usually rub badly with a number of statutes contained in this law. An individual who is not within the protection of the law will find him or herself unable to enjoy the rights of the legal members of the state in which they are an illegal member. For example, in Britain illegal residents may be unable to enjoy the free services in public schools as they are unable to enrol their children there. If they clash with bona fide British citizens, they will also be unable to use the law courts to solve any disagreements. They are, therefore, likely to suffer unjustly even if they are the ones on the right. Corollaries to rule of law: Natural Justice The theory of Natural Justice is a direct outcome from the concept of the rule of law. The foremost idea in natural justice affirms that, "No man shall be the judge of his own cause" according to Davies, Croall and Tyrer (2005). It is on the basis of this principle that a verdict given by magistrates was refuted by the Kings Bench division because a member of the body of judges had a personal interest in the Dimes vs. Grand Junction Canal Case (Cross, 2009). Another example is in the beginning of 1999 appeal in the Pinochet Case (R vs. Bow Street Metropolitan Magistrate ex p Pinochet Ugarte) by the defence (Allen, 2011). A different group of law lords refuted the ruling given in the primary hearing of Lord Hoffman's verdict. This was due to his involvement with the Amnesty International, which nullified the previous court session (Ashworth, 2009). The second concept that governs natural justice is that "no party must be condemned unheard" (Albanese, 2011). This concept is a flag post for the current British judicial system. Conclusion The British Criminal Justice System as well as the ‘Rule of Law’ have made great steps towards allowing the ordinary citizens to benefit from laws that were previously only enjoyed by the upper classes. By stating stipulating that every citizen had the right to a fair trial, these justice practices arrested the possibility of the wealthy using their power indiscriminately to usurp the rights of the rest of the public. However, the justice system also has some disadvantages. When a person of means commits a crime or has a crime committed against him or his family members, he has the money to pay a lot of money to gain the most competent lawyers to defend himself, or launch a case against someone who wronged him (Herring, 2012). The underprivileged are not likely to have such resources, and so are forced to either settle quickly out of court in order to keep the expenses down, or simply refuse to press charges even if they were the ones who were wronged. This means that true justice is still only available to the wealthy or the influential. In nations where corruption is actually an accepted practice, the wealthy can even pay off jurors or judges to rule in their favour. Another area in which the criminal justice system is negligent is in the treatment of victims (Roberson, Wallace & Stuckey, 2009). Most victims of crimes such as sexual and physical assaults are usually reluctant to press charges on their attackers because they do not wish to be forced to go through the process of recounting to total strangers how they were assaulted. If the British Criminal Justice System could find a way of shielding the victims of such crimes from the unwanted attention that is focussed on them when they report such attacks, then it might be said that the justice system truly caters to the needs of law abiding citizens. References Albanese, J. (2011) Professional ethics in criminal justice: being ethical when no one is looking, Prentice Hall, New York. Allen, M. (2011) Textbook on criminal law, OUP, Oxford. Ashworth, A. (2009) Principles of criminal law, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cross, N. (2009) Criminal law and criminal justice: an introduction, Sage, London. Davies, M., Croall, H. & Tyrer (2005) Criminal justice, Pearson, New York. Herring, J. (2012) Criminal law: texts and materials, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hickey, T., & Straugnah, G. (2005) Taking sides: clashing views on controversial issues in criminal justice, McGraw-Hill, New York. Johnstone, G. & Ward, T. (2008) Law and crime, Sage, London. McLeod, I. (2010) Legal method, Palgrave McMillan, London. Ormerod, D. (2009) Smith and Hogan criminal law: cases and materials, OUP, Oxford. Ormerod, D. (2010) Smith and Hogan criminal law, OUP, Oxford. Packer, H. (1968) The limits of the criminal sanction, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Padfield, N. (2003) Text and materials on the criminal justice process, LexisNexis Butterworths, London. Roberson, C., Wallace, H. & Stuckey, G. (2009) Procedures in the justice system, Prentice Hall, New York. Sanders, A. & Young, R. (2000) Criminal justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Schmalleger, F. (2009) Criminal justice: a brief introduction, Prentice Hall, New York. Smartt, U. (2008) Law for criminologists: a practical guide, Sage, London. Wallace, H. & Roberson, C. (2011) Principles of criminal law, Prentice Hall, New York. Zander, M. (2005) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, OUP, Oxford. Zander, M. (2007) Cases and materials in the English legal system, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More