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

STRUCTURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM ENGLAND AND WALES al Affiliation STRUCTURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM ENGLAND AND WALES The structure of the court system in England and Wales is one of the most complicated due to it continuous development. Majorly it is divided into criminal and civil courts which work together to provide justice and as mechanisms to resolve disputes. The main purpose for these court systems is to ensure that each type of case is dealt with in different courts. Evidently, in England and Wales, the legal process starts from the junior courts and moves through senior courts in case there are appeals or the cases are complex. However, the court systems work hand in hand to depending on the complexity of cases and the type of judgement that is required. To a great extent, the doctrine of binding precedent lies at heart of the English law and priorities of decisions are dictated by the hierarchy of the court system. Decisions made by a higher court will be binding on a court lower in the hierarchy. Therefore, the doctrine is highly regarded as one way of maintaining the hierarchy intact. The England and Wales Court systems are broadly divided into civil courts and criminal courts. The civil courts deal with disputes arising in the country while criminal courts deal with cases where the law has been broken. The Supreme Court is the uppermost court and the final court in England and Wales. The Supreme Court makes final decisions where matters could not be resolved by the courts below it (Carper & McKinsey, 2012). Any decision that is made in the Supreme Court becomes binding and there is no decision that can overturn it. However, it is possible that sometimes the court may refer cases to lower courts. The Supreme Court also allows those who feel that they did not receive justice to appeal. For instance, if a person feels that a decision made in senior court did not suit them may decide to appeal in the Supreme Court to have the ruling reassessed. Therefore, the court will settle all criminal and civil appeals that arise from other courts below the hierarchy. This situation is different in countries such as Scotland where the Supreme Court is not the final decision maker in criminal cases. Below the Supreme Court are senior courts of England and Wales, which were formed by the Act of Judicature. The senior court has three branches including the court of appeal, the high court and the crown court (Partington, 2014). The court of appeal acts is the highest among the three and deals with matters arising within the two court systems directly below it in the rank. The civil division of the court of appeal handles issues from the high court while the criminal division handles case from the crown court. The crown court handles majorly serious criminal cases and any cases that come from the magistrate’s courts. On the other hand, the high court handles any civil disputes that arise within the country or from the county courts. The high court houses more courts such as the commercial, mercantile, admiral and technology and companies courts. These subdivisions ensure that there is specifity and high specialization in handling various court cases (Gillespie, 2007). For example, the company’s courts will handle any cases that regard company disputes and will specialize in this field alone. On the other hand, the commercial court deals with cases arising from insurance, banking, and other commercial disputes. The high specialization of the England and Wales courts are important to ensure that there is high specialization and that all cases are handle effectively. Down the hierarchy are the subordinate courts that comprise of the magistrates, family proceedings, youths and county courts. The magistrate’s courts handle any criminal cases that are of lower magnitude than those handled in the crown court. Therefore, any criminal cases that have greater weight are referred to the crown court without going through the magistrate’s court. In this court, there are no juries and only lay magistrate listen to the cases. Those that are dissatisfied in the magistrate’s court have an opportunity to appeal to the crown court. The flexibility of this system ensures that justice is provided and that dissatisfactions are handled by higher courts. On the other hand, family courts handle lawsuits such as adoption of children that arise in families. The same way, youth courts handle any cases where the offenders are below the age of 18 and above 10 years (Gillespie, 2007). The county courts play an important role within the England and Wales court hierarchy. There are over 92 county courts that handle civil trials that arise within the counties. The circuit of judges within these courts handle issues with lower weight and refer serious cases to high courts. Like in other instances, dissatisfied clients have to appeal in the high court to have their cases re-evaluated. Evidently, higher courts have the ability to overturn decisions made in lower courts. After the subordinate courts are special courts that include the coroner’s courts and Ecclesiastical courts. The coroner’s courts handle urgent cases of death that arise within suspicious circumstances (Partington, 2014). Such courts are installed to ensure that such matters are handled as soon as they arise. On the other hand, the Ecclesiastical courts handle disputes that arise within Church of England especially regarding property ownership. The lowest in the hierarchy are “other courts” such as the military courts; Election courts and patents county court. The military courts handle matters that relate to court martial and those that directly concern the military. Elections court handle election petitions in flawed elections while the patents court deal with issues arising from intellectual rights (Zander, 2007). Evidently, the England and Wales courts are comprehensive and diversified to handle as many matters as possible. Each court is specialized to handle specific matter depending on its seriousness, urgency or field or origin. The ability to consider specific issues makes the system effective and flexible in handling court cases. To a great extent, the common law doctrine of binding precedent engages with the England and Wales court hierarchy structure. The precedent doctrine determines the extent to which a decision made by one court in the hierarchy is binding (Dworkin, 2013). According to the doctrine, any decision made by a higher court is binding and cannot be overturned in a court below it in the hierarchy. For instance, a decision made in the high court cannot be overturned in the magistrate’s court. To apply the doctrine of precedence, the lower courts use this approach while evaluating the decisions made by a higher court. When handling any case, the judges must establish how higher courts have ruled such cases and follow the same procedure to handle the similar cases. However, the precedence may be overruled by higher courts, which have the power to change such decisions and make new ones (Tavares & Prout, 2010). Secondly, the decisions may be overturned when the same court that set the decisions, for some reason, decides to follow a different path. This may happen when such decisions are later found faulty or the circumstances of the case are different. The advantage with the doctrine of precedence is that it saves time and allows for certainty in case determination. However, the doctrine may defraud justice when the decisions are uncertain or against the constitution. In civil law, the doctrine of binding precedence is applied to ensure that similar cases are handled in a similar manner. All decisions that are made by a court are binding to all courts that are below it within the hierarchy (Stone-de Montpensier, 2011). Therefore, any decisions made by the Supreme Court must be held in all other courts of England and Wales as they are below this court within the hierarchy. Similarly, any decision made by the court of appeal and high court is binding in the magistrate’s court and any other civil dispute case. Just like in other law systems, the doctrine requires that all cases surrounded by similar circumstances be handled the same way to provide justice. Therefore, lower courts must always check how higher courts have handled cases that are similar to those tabled before them. For complainants to override such previously made decisions must provide evidence to show that their cases are substantially different and that they should be not be bound by such previous laws (Tullock, 2005). In such a case, they may appeal to higher courts to have such decisions overturned. The binding precedence doctrine shows the commitment of the England and Wales court system to uphold respect between its hierarchical structures and to treat cases with certainty. In conclusion, the England and Wales court system hierarchy provides order in which power is upheld. The highest in the rank has the highest power and the lowest has the least power. The Supreme Court is the final decision maker and handles any matter that proves difficult within lower courts. The court system puts into consideration the complexity of the matters and handles criminal and civil cases differently. To ensure specifity, the court system has many branches to ensure that specific courts handle certain cases to avoid confusion. The common law doctrine of precedence requires that decisions made by higher courts in the rank bind the judges who serve courts below it. The aim is to ensure that there is order and that similar cases are handled the same way with high degree of certainty. Bibliography Carper, D. L., & McKinsey, J, 2012, Understanding the law. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. Dworkin, G. 2013, Stare decisis in the House of Lords. The Modern Law Review, 25(2), 163-178. Top of Form Gillespie, A. A. 2007, The English legal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Partington, M. 2014, Introduction to the English legal system, 2014-2015. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stone-de Montpensier, R, 2011, Logic and Law: The Precedence of Precedents. Minn. L. Rev., 51, 655. Bottom of Form Tavares, C., & Prout, A. (Eds.). 2010, Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales:(Digest). Home Office, Research and Statistics Department. Tullock, G. 2005, The case against the common law. The origins of law and economics: Essays by the founding fathers, 464. Zander, M. 2007, Cases and materials on the English legal system. Cambridge University Press. Read More