In this essay, I will critically discuss the court system of England and Wales, including the historical context and significant developments as well as the different perspectives of the court system. I will also compare England and Wales court system to others in the world and I will argue that the England and Wales court system is the most successful system.
A court is a place where trials and legal cases take place, it is the place where decisions are made by the judges and where witnesses are cross-examined. (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019) The court system has been around for many years but it has been developing for more than 1000 years and it is one of the most important elements in the criminal justice system. (Judiciary.UK, 2019a) In the court evidence that has been gathered is measured, in order to determine if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. (Judiciary. UK, 2019b)
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The court system consists of many different types of courts such as the magistrate's court, the crown court, the court of appeal, the high court, the supreme court and many more. (Judiciary.UK, 2019b) All these different courts deal with the different types of cases, the magistrate court deals with summary offences these are the offences that are not that serious such as motoring and minor assaults, therefore the defendant is not permitted to trail by the jury. The magistrate also deals with either-way offences these are offences such as thefts, as the name states these cases can either be dealt at the magistrate by a judge only or at the crown court by the judge and jury. Finally, an indictable-only offence is an offence such as murder, rape, manslaughter and others. These types of cases are very serious therefore they need to be heard at the crown court. (Judiciary.UK, 2019b) The crown court is where serious offences are dealt with, such as cases sent for trial from the magistrates, either-way offences and appeals against decisions of the magistrates' court. Serious cases are sent to the crown court because that is where stronger punishments can be given to the offenders. (Judiciary. UK, 2019c)
The court system plays a significant role in the criminal justice system as it helps determine whether an offender is guilty or not guilty. Mostly, all criminal cases start at a magistrate court and about 95 per cent of these cases will usually end in the magistrate’s courts. (Brightknowledge.org, 2019) In the magistrate court if a defendant has been entered for a plea and later the defendant is found to be guilty, then the judge can enforce a prison sentence for up to six months or a penalty of up to £5,000. (Cps.gov.uk, 2013)
In a courtroom there are many roles that have different responsibilities; the magistrate is the person who decides if someone is guilty or not. The magistrate’s clerk is responsible for recording all evidence that is shown at the court hearing. The defendant, this is an individual that has been accused of committing the crime. There is an associate judge who is responsible for assisting the judge in any issues that arise before or after a trial. Barristers are also at the courtroom and they present the defence or prosecution case in court. A judge and jury of 12 have the responsibility to hear cases and make decision. (leesa, 2014) witnesses are also present at the courtroom and they are responsible to give testimony about uncertain facts in the case. A court reporter is responsible for writing a summary of the trial. A court deputy is always present at a trial and they are responsible for marking exhibits and ensuring that the trial is running smoothly and effectively. (B. A, 2019)
Justice in 1066 (where it was the Norman invasion and the period of the Anglo-Saxons) was a combination of the local and royal government. The lord or one of his stewards had control over the local courts and the king's court (the Curia Regis) was controlled by the king himself. (History, 2013) Trails in those days were unpleasant and the most disturbing, this was because the accused had to hold a hot bar of iron in their bare hands and they had to pull out a stone from boiling water or something as dreadful as that. These punishments were also used to determine if the accused is guilty or not guilty of the crime they committed, so after the punishment was given and after a few days their hand began to heal they would believe that God is on their side and that would prove they were innocent, therefore there were an unknown number of not guilty decisions recorded. In those days they had a lot of peculiar ways to determine if someone is guilty or not; this carried on until the end of the 12th century. (History, 2013) In 1087-1100 William II got rid of the trial by ordeal as it was not useful and people were getting punished for crimes they didn’t commit and others were getting away for crimes they did commit, this was condemned by the church in 1216.
In the 12th century, the first judge was court officials who had the skill of advising the king on the settlement of disputes. When Henry II come into a rule (1154-1189) he developed a jury to settle arguments over ownership of lands, the jury consisted of 12 local knights. There were also 18 judges in the whole country. (Mason, 2016) A declaration was issued by Henry at the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, this declaration commanded the non-kings bench judges who were remaining to travel the country and deal with cases. This system was known as the ‘Assize system’ because some judges would sit in London while the others travelled the country, this system lasted till 1971. In 1285 the magistrate's court came into place during the period of Edward I. From that point and still continuing till this day, the magistrate court deals with different small offence cases.
In 1830 courts evolved rapidly through legislation and structure. The court of the great session was eliminated and welsh counties and Chester were put into the general circuit system. The new central criminal court stared a short while after, joining the administration of justice in London and surrounding areas. Judges of the central criminal court were granted permission to deals with cases outside the court’s jurisdiction, this ensured a fair trial. The county courts were developed under the county courts act 1846 to deal with civil cases. (Judiciary. UK, 2019d)
In 1873 a new act was passed to combine the common law and equity; this act was known as the Judicature act 1873. This act ensured that all courts could administrate both equity and common law. This act also created the high court and court of appeal, this ensured the right of appeal in civil cases to the court of appeal, on the other hand, criminal appeals were still restricted until the creation of a court of criminal appeal, this court was created under the criminal appeal act 1907. (Judiciary. UK, 2019d) Quarter sessions trace back to 1327 and they were established by Edward III. These sessions were held by the justice of the peace, the purpose of these sessions was to hear criminal offences and also hear civil and criminal appeals, these sessions only met four times a year. However, in 1791 the quarter session was abolished under the courts' act 1971 and a new system was put into place, it was known as the crown court. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018)
In the 18th and 19th-century people were entered into a system if they were charged for a criminal offence in London. When the suspects were entered into this system, they had to go through a long phase where decisions were made and according to those decisions the suspect would either be removed from the system entirely or they would go deeper into the system and be taken into many paths that lead to different decisions. The criminal courts in the 18th and 19th century consisted of different courts that were spread across different stages. (Ward, 2016) The first stage was the summary justice this is where the justice of the peace would conduct a summary hearing and petty sessions under the summary jurisdictions. This was the stage where minor offences would be dealt with by a single or a pair of justices, criminals who were sentenced under the summary justice would have been either punished with a fine, whipping or commitment to the house of correction. The second stage was known as the “session of peace” this is where more serious offences and felonies took place. In London and Middlesex sessions were held 8 times a year separately, 4 times a year in Westminster. In these sessions, the justice of peace heard cases of those who were committed to prison for jury trails. The third level was known as old Baily, in this type of court major offences which were punishable by death were judged here, they met 8 times a year until 1834 when the central criminal court act changed, they also changed the number of times they met a year to 10 to 12 each year. Finally, the highest level of courts was known as the King’s/Queen’s Bench, in this court, they heard an insignificant number of serious cases. This court acted as a review for all the other courts. (Ward, 2016)
There were many significant developments that helped to organise the UK courts system. Henry II established the common law in 1154 by developing a court system that was common to the country this was done by removing local control and establishing a jury system of citizens who had taken an oath to investigate criminal charges and civil claims, (The open university, 2013) this development still exist till today and has a huge impact on the system for example, they have the responsibility of helping the judge decide if the offender is guilty or not guilty, using the facts and evidence of the case.
One more key development that took place was in 1873, when the old higher courts were obliterated and new courts were established under the judicature acts of 1873, these new courts were known as the supreme court of judicature and consisting of a high court of justice and the court of appeal. The supreme court of judicature was made by combining the court of chancery, the court of queen’s/king’s bench, the court of common pleas, the court of Exchequer, the high court of admiralty, the court of probate and the court of divorce and matrimonial causes. The objective of the act was to join the historically divides courts of common law and equity. Another purpose of this was to reduce the disorder and the resulting inefficiency of courts that had particular powers of the legal control throughout England and wales. The act of 1873 is known as the first step towards modernizing the court system. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016)
In 1971 there were many significant changes to the court system of England and wales. The crown court was established under the courts' act of 1971, this act also introduced the posts of circuit judges and recorders and abolished the assize and quarter sessions in order to make way for the new system that would run throughout the UK, this development would bring greater efficiency to the court hearing. The purpose of this change was to reform and modernise the court system of England and wales. (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016b)
The constitutional reform act 2005 also brought many fundamental changes to the court system of the United Kingdom, these changes helped to make the court system better and more organised. First of all, this act established the supreme court, the aim of this was to accomplish a clear severance of power amongst the legislature and the judiciary, this was because before the highest court was the Appellate committee of the house of lords and the lord chancellor, therefore appeals would be subject to political influence. The supreme court now has its own building on the other side of parliament square separate from the parliament. Eleven of the twelve supreme court justices were recruited from the earlier top judges (the “law lords”) when the supreme court was formed. They can’t sit or vote in the House of lords even though they bear their names. (Heinonline.org, 2018)
Many people have different perspectives of the England and Wales court system. The ministry of justice believes that the court's system is not flexible enough, for example, the Magistrate courts and the crown deal with different levels of criminal offences and this minimises the efficiency of the services. (Transforming our justice system: summary of reforms and consultation, 2016) A criminal barrister who serves as a defence lawyer and judge, argues in a newspaper interview that our legal system is reaching a turning point and that support and change is urgently needed. (Summers, 2018)
According to research, A minority of the British public do not trust the court system, they feel unsatisfied by the way it works. More than half of Britain’s public says that the court system of England and Wales is unfair and inaccessible, this shows that some people are unhappy of the way the court system works and they feel that all their decisions are not reasonable. On the other hand, the rest of the British public believe that the court system is fair and transparent, this means that they feel that the court system is doing enough to satisfy the public and all the decisions they make are fair. (New Law Journal, 2015)
On the other hand, there are many good aspects of the England and Wales court system, most people feel that the court system is one of the best in the world because of how it deals with different cases. Some people believe that England and Wales have a powerful and incorruptible court system, this shows that the people have trust in the court system and they have respect for the court system. (Legal UK, n.d.)
Another positive characteristic of England and wales court system is that it is well structured, this means that the general public feels that the way different courts deal with different cases is effective and time-efficient for example, the magistrate court deals with the small offences and that leaves the crown court to deal with the more serious offences. (Thomas Cooper LLP, 2017)
There is a well-known difference in the England and Wales court system compared to other court systems around the world. The jury system is one of the biggest differences that make the England and wales court system unique, this is because the use of juries in the United Kingdom is seen as an important check on the power of government and as a means of incorporating law into the community. Compared to other countries, for example, in France the jury and the judge sit together in order to judge if someone is guilty or not guilty and in other countries there are no jury or their decision doesn't matter, therefore decisions are then completely down to a judge or a group of judges. However, in England and Wales, there are arguments regarding juries indicate that they may not have the knowledge to understand the complicated issues they face and may be affected by their own biases. (Oxford Summer School from Oxford Royale Academy, 2016) There are other differences concerning the jury: the Scottish jury has 15 members rather than 12 and makes a decision by only a simple majority. (Evans, 2019)
Finally, the court system of the United Kingdom remains one of the most significant components of the criminal justice system because it has been developing for more than one thousand years. In the 1066’s the court system of England and Wales was not very well-organized and pleasant because of the way the court system worked, for example, when an induvial had committed a crime they were then sent to one of the courts, where they would go through to be punished by the authority of the court, punishments would have differed depending on the crime committed by the induvial and those punishments were cruel and horrible. Additional, in the past the court system was not very fair as of how they dealt with different cases, because the people of innocence were dealt with unethically for the reason that they believed that if your body was healed from the dreadful punishment that they were sentenced to, then you were found not guilty. Though, if your body did not restore itself then you were found guilty. Throughout its history, the court system started to develop gradually from its harsh methods of punishing offenders.
Progressively, the structure of the court system also started to take shape and started to modernise, this was done by many changes to the legislation and different courts being established. The courts act 1971 helped to modernise England and wales court system by creating a crown court for serious offences. Additionally, the judicature act of 1873, also established the supreme court in order to join the common law and equity courts that were historically separated and to ensure that only one power had legal control over the courts of England and Wales. All these changes have had substantial impacts on the England and Wales court system because it has helped to make the court system on of the greatest in the world as well as making it organised, without a stable court system we wouldn’t have trials that would be reasonable according to the felony committed by the offender, this means that criminals will not be judged for the crime committed therefore they would be walking free and innocent people would have to suffer for the wrongdoings of someone else, this will have an impact on the society as they would not feel safe in their own homes.
Stuck on your essay?
