Judicial system of the RF, GB and USA
JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF THE RF,
GB AND USA
Judicial System of the Russian Federation
1. In all legal systems there are institutions for modifying, interpreting and applying the
law. Usually these take the form of a hierarchy of courts as a branch
of government established to administer justice. The role of each court
and its capacity to
make decisions is strictly defined in relation to other courts. There
are two main reasons for having a variety of courts. One is that a particular
court can specialize in particular kinds of legal actions (for example,
family courts). The other is that a person who feels his case was not fairly treated
in a lower court can appeal to a higher court for reassessment.
The decisions of a higher court are binding upon
lower courts.
2. The structure of our judicial system and the sphere of activities
of its various parts are determined by the Constitution and federal
constitutional laws. There are three main elements within this system:
the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Higher Arbitration
Court.
3. The Constitutional Court of the RF considers cases relating to the compliance
of the federal laws, normative acts of the President, the Council of
the Federation, the State Duma, the Government, constitutions of republics,
charters and other normative acts of the subjects of the RF with the
country’s Constitution. There is a separate system of the constitutional
courts (or charter courts)
of the republics and other subjects of the Federation.
4. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body of the four-tiered system
of courts of general jurisdiction: civil, criminal, administrative and
military cases. Lower courts are district, city and regional courts.
After the reestablishment
of the Justices of the Peace in 2000 magistrate’s courts have become
an integral part of the system of courts of general jurisdiction. The
activity of all these courts may be classified as follows: a court of
trial, a court of appeal, a court of cassation.
5. The Higher Arbitration Court is the supreme judicial body within
the system of courts competent to settle economic disputes. The basic
judicial organs in that system are arbitration courts of the subjects
of the Federation.
6. Each court has its staff which
usually consists of legally qualified
judges, clerks and bailiffs. The
participants of the legal procedure may be the following: a plaintiff
– the party bringing a lawsuit, a defendant – a party being sued,
a jury – a group of ordinary people summoned to pass a verdict, a prosecutor
- the lawyer for
the plaintiff in a criminal case, an advocate -
a lawyer for defence or just a legal counsel
in civil cases, witnesses - people who give testimony, experts - they
express their own opinions.
The history of constitutional court in Russia
December 25, 1989 the Constitutional Supervision Committee was created.
It started functioning mid-1990 and was dissolved towards the end of
1991. In December 1990 the Constitution of the Russian Soviet Federated
Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was amended with provisions which provided
for creation of Constitutional Court (whereas a similar USSR body was
called a Committee, not a Court). On July 12, 1991 Constitutional Court
of the RSFSR Act was adopted. In October the Fifth RSFSR Congress of
Soviets elected 13 members of the Court and the Constitutional Court
de facto started functioning. From November 1991 till October 1993 it
rendered some decisions of great significance. For example, it declared
unconstitutional certain decrees of Presidium of the Supreme Soviet,
which were adopted ultra vires, and forbade the practice of extrajudicial
eviction.
On October 7, 1993 Boris Yeltsin's decree suspended work of the Constitutional
Court. According to the decree, the Constitutional Court was "in
deep crisis". On December 24 another presidential decree repealed
the Constitutional Court of the RSFSR Act. In July 1994 the new Constitutional
Court Act was adopted. However, the new Constitutional Court started
working only in February, 1995, because the Federation Council of Russia
refused several times to appoint judges nominated by Yeltsin.
In 2005 the federal authorities proposed to transfer the court from
Moscow to Saint Petersburg.
President Dmitry Medvedev on June 2, 2009 signed an amendment whereby
the chairperson of the court and his deputies would be proposed to the
parliament by the president rather than elected by the judges, as was
the case before.[1]
Constitutional Court Judge Vladimir Yaroslavtsev in an interview to
the Spanish newspaper 2009, claimed that the presidential executive
office and security services had undermined judicial independence in
Russia. In October the Constitutional Court accused Yaroslavtsev of
"undermining the authority of the judiciary" in violation
of the judicial code and forced him to resign from the Council of Judges.
Judge Anatoly Kononov had supported Yaroslavtsev in his interview to
Sobesednik. The Constitutional Court forced Kononov to step down from
the Constitutional Court on January 1, 2010, 7 years ahead of schedule.
Law of the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has three legal systems. English law, which applies in England
and Wales, and Northern Ireland law, which applies in Northern Ireland,
are based on common-law principles.
The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (usually just referred to,
as "The House of Lords") was the highest court in the land
for all criminal and civil cases inEngland and Wales and Northern Ireland,
and for all civil cases in Scots law, but in October 2009 was replaced
by the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
In England and Wales, the court system is headed by the Supreme Court of
England and Wales, consisting of the Court of Appeal, the High Court
of Justice (for civil cases) and the Crown Court (for criminal cases).
The Courts of Northern Ireland follow the same pattern. In Scotland the
chief courts are the Court of Session, for civil cases, and the High Court
of Justiciary, for criminal cases. Sheriff courts have no equivalent outside
Scotland as these Courts deal both with criminal and civil caseloads.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court of appeal
for several independent Commonwealth
1. Three legal systems
There are three distinct legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Northern
Ireland and Scotland. Each has its own legal system.
1.1. English law
"English law" is a term of art. It refers to the legal system administered
by the courts in England and Wales. The ultimate body of appeal is the Supreme Court of
the United Kingdom. They rule on both civil and criminal matters. English
law is renowned as being the mother of the common law. English law can
be described as having its own distinct legal doctrine, distinct from civil
law legal systems since 1189. There has been no major codification of the
law, andjudicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive. In
the early centuries, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting
the Writ system to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent
and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law, e.g.,
the Law Merchant began in the Pie-Powder Courts see Court of Piepowder (a
corruption of the French "pieds-poudrés" or "dusty feet",
meaning ad hoc marketplace courts). As Parliamentdeveloped in strength,
and subject to the doctrine of separation of powers, legislation gradually
overtook judicial law making so that, today, judges are only able to
innovate in certain very narrowly defined areas. Time before 1189 was
defined in 1276 as being time immemorial.
After the Acts of Union, in 1707, English law has been one of two legal
systems in the same kingdom and has been influenced by Scots law, most
notably in the development and integration of the law merchant by Lord
Mansfield and in time the development of the law of negligence. Scottish
influence may have influenced the abolition of the forms of action in
the nineteenth century and extensive procedural reforms in the twentieth.
1.2. Northern Irish legal system
The law of Northern Ireland is a common law system. It is administered
by the courts of Northern Ireland, with ultimate appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom in both civil and criminal matters. The law of Northern Ireland is closely similar to English law, the
rules of common law having been imported into the Kingdom of Ireland under
English rule. However there are still important differences.
The sources of the law of Northern Ireland are English common law, and
statute law. Of the latter, statutes of the Parliaments of Ireland, of
the United Kingdom and of Northern Ireland are in force, and latterly statutes
of the devolved Assembly.
1.3. Scots law
Scots law is a unique legal system with an ancient basis in Roman law. Grounded in uncodified civil law dating
back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, it also features elements of common
law with medieval sources. Thus Scotland has a pluralistic, or 'mixed', legal
system, comparable to that of South Africa, and, to a lesser degree,
the partly codified pluralistic systems of Louisiana and Quebec. Since the Acts
of Union, in 1707, it has shared a legislature with the rest of the United
Kingdom. Scotland and England & Wales each retained fundamentally
different legal systems, but the Union brought English influence on
Scots law and vice versa. In recent years Scots law has also been affected
by both European law under the Treaty of Rome and the establishment of the Scottish
Parliament which may pass legislation within its areas of legislative
competence as detailed by the Scotland Act 1998.
English Judiciary
1. The Civil Courts. Civil actions take place
between two or more individuals in dispute. These disputes can take
many forms, for example between neighbours, families, companies, consumers
and manufacturers. It is the function of the civil courts to adjudicate
on these disputes.
2. The lowest court in a civil action is a county court,
of which there is one in every town in England and Wales. There are
some 250 county courts. Each court is assigned at least one circuit judge
and one district judge. The circuit judge usually hears the high-value
claims and matters of greater importance or complexity. The district
judge hears uncontested
matters, mortgage repossession
claims and small-value claims. The circuit judge deals with appeals
from decisions by the district judge.
3. The jurisdiction of the county courts covers: actions founded upon
contract and tort; trust and mortgage cases; action for the recovery of land;
disputes between landlords and tenants, complaints about race and sex
discrimination; admiralty cases
(maritime questions and offences) and patent cases; divorce cases and
other family matters. The general limit in such cases heard before the
county court is 25,000 pounds.
4. Cases involving larger amounts of money are heard by one of the divisions
of the High Court.
This court has unlimited civil jurisdiction and consists of three branches:
- the Queen’s Bench Division,
which is concerned with contract and tort cases, and deals with applications
for judicial review;
- the Chancery Division,
which deals with corporate and personal insolvency,
disputes in the running of companies,
between landlords and tenants and in intellectual property matters;
and the interpretation of trusts and contested wills, and
- the Family Division,
which is concerned with family law, including adoption and divorce.
Judges in the County Courts are circuit judges who rank equally with
those who sit in the Crown Court. They are assisted by district judges.
5. Appeals in matrimonial,
adoption, guardianship and child care proceedings heard by magistrates
courts go to the Family Division of the High Court. The Chancery Division
hears appeals about bankruptcy and company insolvency decisions. The
Queen’s Bench Division exercises jurisdiction in respect of habeas corpus cases.
Appeals from the High Court and county courts are heard in the Court
of Appeal (Civil Division), which is presided over by the Master of the Rolls.
The Court of Appeal normally consists of three judges. Each one delivers a judgment,
and the majority opinion
prevails. The Court has the power to order a new trial or the reversal or variation of
a judgment.
6. In accordance with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the judicial
functions of the House of Lords as of the final national court of appeal
in civil and criminal cases are set to be transferred
in 2009 to a new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. This Supreme Court
of the UK shall consist of 12 judges appointed by the Monarch by letters patent.
One of the judges becomes President and one is appointed to be Deputy
President of the Court. The judges other than the President and Deputy
President are styled “Justices
of the Supreme Court”.
The first Supreme Court judges are the current twelve Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary but the new members of the Court will not take the peerage.
7. The Criminal Courts. There are two main
types of court, magistrates' courts (or courts of first instance), which
deal with about 95 per cent of criminal cases, and Crown Courts for
more serious offences. All criminal cases above the level of magistrates'
courts are held before a jury.
8. There are about 700 magistrates' courts in England and Wales, served
by - approximately 28,000 unpaid or lay' magistrates or Justices of
the Peace (JPs), who have been dealing with 'minor crimes for over 600
years. JPs are ordinary citizens chosen from the community. These people
are not legally qualified but receive some basic training in court procedures,
the examination of pre-sentence reports and penalties for certain offences. Lay magistrates
usually sit in groups of three. The more senior magistrate sits in the
middle and plays the leading role. They should not all be of the same
sex. Serving members of the lay magistracy
are entitled to use the letters 'JP' after their names meaning that
they are Justices of the Peace.
Magistrates' courts may not impose a sentence of more than six months
imprisonment or a fine of more than £2,000, and may refer cases requiring
a heavier penalty to the Crown Court.
9. The most serious crimes are tried and sentenced in the Crown Court.
These crimes are known as indictable offences. All judges, sitting in
the Crown Court have unlimited sentencing powers subject to the legal
maximum. The judge presides over the Crown Court and passes sentence
(if the defendant is found guilty). In a Crown Court trial there are
twelve jurors. These are ordinary members of the public between the
ages of 18 and 70 who are selected at random from electoral register.
The main function of the jury is to judge the guilt or innocence of
the defendant.
10. A person convicted in a magistrates' court may appeal against its
decision to the Crown Court. An appeal against a decision of the Crown
Court may be taken to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), but it
is seldom successful. Judges in the Court of Appeal may confirm, reverse or vary the original
sentence. The Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal is headed by
the Lord Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the supreme court in all matters under English law, Northern Irish
law and Scottish civil law. It is the court of last resort and highest appellate
court in the United Kingdom; however the High Court of Justiciary remains
the supreme court for criminal cases inScotland. The Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to devolution — cases in which
the legal powers of the three devolved governments or laws made by the
devolved legislatures are questioned. It shares the Middlesex Guildhall in
the City of Westminster, with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009. It assumed the judicial functions
of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 professional
judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial
business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been
held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
1. Jurisdiction
The main role of the UK Supreme Court is to hear appeals from courts in the United
Kingdom's three legal systems: England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland.
(English and Welsh law differ only to the extent that the National Assembly
for Wales makes laws for Wales that differ from those in England, and the
two countries have a shared court system.) The Supreme Court acts as
the highest court for civil appeals from the Court of Session in Scotland
but the highest appeal for criminal cases is kept in Scotland. It may
hear appeals from the civil Court of Session, just as the House of Lords
did previously.
From the Court of Session, permission to appeal is not required and
any case can proceed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom if two Advocates certify
that an appeal is suitable. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
leave to appeal is required either from the Court of Appeal or from
a Justice of the Supreme Court itself.
The Court's focus is on cases that raise points of law of general public
importance. Like the previous Appellate Committee of the House of Lords,
appeals from many fields of law are likely to be selected for hearing—including
commercial disputes, family matters, judicial review claims against
public authorities and issues under theHuman Rights Act 1998. The Court
also hears some criminal appeals, but not from Scotland as there is
no right of appeal from the High Court of Justiciary, Scotland's highest
criminal court.
The Supreme Court also determines "devolution issues" (as
defined by the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government
of Wales Act 2006). These are legal proceedings about the powers of
the three devolved
The twelve justices do not all hear every case - typically a case will
be heard by a panel of five justices, but sometimes the panel may consist
of three, seven or nine members. All twelve justices are also members
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and spend some of their
time in that capacity.
2. History
The creation of a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom was first mooted
in a July 2003 Department of Constitutional Affairs Consultation Paper. Although
the report noted that there had been no criticism of the current law
lords, or any indication of an actual bias, it argued that the separation
of the judicial functions of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords should
be made explicit from the legislative functions of the House of Lords.
First, it was concerned whether there is any longer sufficient transparency
of independence from the executive and the legislature to give assurance
of the independence of the judiciary. Looked at alternatively it was
argued that requirement for the appearance of impartiality and independence
also limited the ability of the Law Lords to contribute to the work
of the House of Lords, thus reducing the value to both them and the
House of their membership. Second, it was concerned that it was not always
understood by the public that judicial decisions of "the House
of Lords" were in fact taken by the Judicial Committee of the House
of Lords and that non-judicial members were never involved in its judgements.
Conversely, it was felt that the extent to which the Law Lords themselves
have decided to refrain from getting involved in political issues in
relation to legislation on which they might later have to adjudicate
was not always appreciated. The new President of the Court, Lord Phillips,
has claimed that their old position had confused people and that with
the Supreme Court there would for the first time in the UK be a clear separation
of powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. Finally,
it was noted that space within the House of Lords was at a constant
premium and a separate supreme court would ease the pressure on the
Palace of Westminster.
The main argument against the court was that the previous system had
worked well and kept costs down. Reformers expressed concerns that the
historical admixture of legislative, judicial and executive power in
the UK might conflict with the state's obligations under the European
Convention on Human Rights. Officials who make or execute laws have
an interest in court cases that put those laws to the test. When the
state invests judicial authority in those officials, it puts the independence
and impartiality of the courts at risk. Consequently, it was supposedly
possible that the decisions of the Law Lords might be challenged in
theEuropean Court of Human Rights on the basis that they had not constituted
a fair trial.
Lord Neuberger has expressed fear that the new court could make itself
more powerful than the House of Lords committee it succeeded, saying
that there is a real risk of "judges arrogating to themselves greater
power than they have at the moment". Lord Phillips said such an outcome
was "a possibility", but was "unlikely".
The reforms were controversial and were brought forward with little
consultation but were subsequently extensively debated in Parliament. During
2004, a select committee of the House of Lords scrutinised the arguments
for and against setting up a new court. The Government estimated the
set-up cost of the Supreme Court at £56.9 million.
The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform
Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009. It assumed the judicial
functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of
Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 professional
judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial
business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been
held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
3. Other supreme courts in the United Kingdom
The High Court of Justiciary, the Court of Session and the Office of the
Accountant of Court comprise the College of Justice, and are known as
the Supreme Courts of Scotland.
Before 1 October 2009, there were two other courts known as supreme
court, namely the Supreme Court of England and Wales, which
was created in the 1870s under the Judicature Acts, and theSupreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland,
each of which consists of a Court of Appeal, High Court of Justice and Crown
Court. When the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 came
into force, those became known as the Senior Courts of England and Wales and
the Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland respectively, to avoid confusion.
4. Composition
4.1. Organisation
4.1.1. President
Main article: President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
The current President of the Court is Nicholas Phillips, Baron Phillips
of Worth Matravers, former Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice,
and previously the Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.
4.1.2. Deputy President
Main article: Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
The current Deputy President of the Court is David Hope, Baron Hope of
Craighead, one of the two present Scottish judges and former Lord President
of the Court of Session.
4.1.3. Justices
Main article: Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Justices of the Supreme Court are not subject to term limits, but may
be removed from office on the address of Parliament. All British judges
(including Supreme Court justices) are forced to retire at the age of
70 if first appointed to a judicial office after 31 March 1995, or at
the age of 75 otherwise.
4.1.4. Acting judges
In addition to the twelve permanent Justices, the President may request
other senior judges, drawn from two groups, to sit as "acting judges"
of the Supreme Court.
§ The first group is those judges who hold 'office as a senior territorial
judge': judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, judges of
the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland and judges of the First or Second
Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland.
§ The second group is known as the 'supplementary panel'. The President
may approve in writing retired senior judges' membership of this panel
if they are under 75 years of age.
4.1.5. Chief Executive and Registrar
The first Chief Executive of the Court is Jenny Rowe, and the first Registrar,
Louise di Mambro.
4.2. Appointments process
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 makes provision for a new appointments
process for Justices of the Supreme Court. A selection commission will be formed when vacancies
arise. This will be composed of the President and Deputy President of
the Supreme Court and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission of
England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotlandand the
Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. In October 2007,
the Ministry of Justice announced that this appointments process would
be adopted on a voluntary basis for appointments of Lords of Appeal in
Ordinary. New judges appointed to the Supreme Court after its creation
will not necessarily receive peerages.
4.3. Initial justices
Ten Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) holding office on 1 October
2009 became the first justices of the 12-member Supreme Court. The 11th place on the Supreme Court was filled by Lord Clarke (formerly
the Master of the Rolls), who was the first Justice to be appointed directly
to the Supreme Court. One of the former Law Lords, Lord Neuberger, was
appointed to replace Lord Clarke as Master of the Rolls, and so did not
move to the new court. Sir John Dyson became the 12th and final justice
of the Supreme Court on 13 April 2010.
The Senior Law Lord on 1 October 2009, Lord Phillips, became the Supreme
Court's first President.
The first and current Justices, in order of seniority (from 13 April
2010), are:
5. Building
The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 gave time for a suitable building
to be found and fitted out before the Law Lords moved out of the Houses
of Parliament, where they had previously used a series of rooms strung out along
a corridor in the House of Lords.
After a lengthy survey of suitable sites, including Somerset House, the
Government announced that the new court would be located in the Middlesex
Guildhall, in Parliament Square, Westminster. That decision was the subject
of an inquiry by a committee of Parliament, and the grant of planning
permission by Westminster City Council for refurbishment works was challenged
in judicial review proceedings by the conservation group SAVE Britain's
Heritage. It was also reported that English Heritage had been put under
enormous pressure to approve the scheme. Feilden + Mawson LLP, supported
by Foster & Partners, were appointed architects for the project.
The building had formerly been used as a headquarters for Middlesex County
Council and the Middlesex Quarter Sessions, and later as a Crown Court centre.
6. Badge
The emblem with stylised depictions of the four
floral emblems.
The official badge of the Supreme Court was granted by the College of
Arms in October 2008. It comprises both the Greek letter omega (representing
finality) and the symbol of Libra (symbolising the scales of justice),
in addition to the four floral emblems of the United Kingdom: a Tudor
rose, representing England, conjoined with the leaves of a leek, representing
Wales; a flax for Northern Ireland; and a thistle, representing Scotland.
Two adapted versions of its official badge are used by the Supreme Court.
One (above, in infobox at top right portion of this article) features
the words "The Supreme Court" and the letter omega in black
(in the official badge granted by the College of Arms, the interior
of the Latin and Greek letters are gold and white, respectively), and
displays a simplified version of the crown (also in black) and larger,
stylised versions of the floral emblems; this modified version of the
badge is featured on the new Supreme Court website, as well as in the
forms that will be used by the Supreme Court. A further variant on the
above omits the crown entirely and is featured prominently throughout
the building.
Yet another emblem is formed from a more abstract set of depictions
of the four floral emblems and is used in the carpets of the Middlesex
Guildhall. It was designed by Sir Peter Blake, famous for designing the
cover of The Beatles' 1967 album, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
Crown
C
ourt
This article is about the British court.
The Crown Court of England and Wales is, together with the High Court
of Justice and the Court of Appeal, one of the constituent parts of
the Senior Courts of England and Wales. It is the higher court of first
instance in criminal cases; however, for some purposes the Crown Court
is hierarchically subordinate to the High Court and its Divisional Courts.
The Crown Court sits in around 90 locations in England and Wales. The
administration of the Crown Court is conducted through HM Courts Service.
Previously conducted across six circuits (Midland, Northern, North Eastern,
South Eastern, Wales & Chester and Western), HM Courts Service is
now divided into seven regions: Midlands, North East, North West, South
East, South West, London and Wales. The Wales region was identified
separately, having regard to the devolved legislative powers of the
Welsh Assembly Government [1]. The Central Criminal Court at the Old
Bailey, originally established by its own Act of Parliament, is part
of the Crown Court, and is the venue at which many of the most serious
criminal cases are heard.
The Crown Court carries out four principal types of activity: appeals
from decisions of magistrates; sentencing of defendants committed from
magistrates’ courts, jury trials, and the sentencing of those who
are convicted in the Crown Court, either after trial or on pleading
guilty. On average, defendants in custody face a waiting time of 13
weeks and 3 days. Those on bail experience greater delay, waiting on
average 15 weeks and 4 days until their case is heard. Rather than speaking
of a location at which the Crown Court sits, it is common practice to
refer to any venue as a Crown court, e.g., Teesside Crown court.
1.
Appeals from the Magistrates' Court
See also: Challenges to the decisions of Magistrates'
Courts
In 2003-4 the Crown Court heard 11,707 appeals against conviction and/or
sentence from those convicted in the magistrates' courts. At the conclusion
of the hearing the Crown Court has the power to confirm, reverse or
vary any part of the decision under appeal. If the appeal is decided
against the accused, the Crown Court has the power to impose any sentence
which the magistrates could have imposed, including one which is harsher
than the one originally imposed. There was a waiting time of just over
8 weeks for appeals; 90% of appellants waited 14 weeks or less.
2.
Defendants committed from magistrates for sentencing
In 2003-4 the Crown Court dealt with 31,018 cases for sentencing from
the magistrates. As the Magistrates' Court only has the power to impose
a six-month custodial sentence or a £5,000 fine, the court has the
power to commit defendants to the Crown Court for sentencing — this
can be done when they are of the opinion that either the offence, or
the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with
it, was so serious that greater punishment should be inflicted than
the Magistrates' Court has power to impose, or, in the case of a violent
or sexual offence, that a custodial sentence longer than the court has
power to impose is necessary to protect the public from serious harm.
Committals may also arise from breaches of the terms of a Community
Rehabilitation Order or a suspended sentence of imprisonment. The court
performance target is that cases committed for sentence should be heard
within 10 weeks.
3.
Trials
The Crown Court disposed of 83,247 committals for trial in 2003-4. Taking
into account 29,752 cases still outstanding, the implied waiting time
for trials was 18.5 weeks. This is the time between committal or lodging
an appeal and the start of the Crown Court hearing. This level of delay
has been gradually worsening over the last 6 years. The average time
to try a case on a plea of not guilty is about 7 hours. Since the average
length of a sitting day is 4.33 hours, this implies that a not guilty
case takes just over the equivalent of one and a half court days.
4.
Appeals from the Crown Court
Main article: Appeals from the Crown Court
See also: Courts of England and Wales
When the Crown Court is dealing with a matter connected with a trial
on indictment (i.e., a jury trial), appeal lies to the criminal division
of the Court of Appeal and thence to the Supreme Court. In all other
cases, appeal from the Crown Court lies by way of case stated to a Divisional
Court of the High Court.
5.
Judges
The Judges who normally sit in the Crown Court are High Court Judges,
Circuit Judges and Recorders. Circuit Judges also sit in the County
Court. Recorders are Barristers or Solicitors in private practice, who
sit part time as Judges. The most serious cases (treason, murder, rape
etc.) are allocated to High Court Judges and Senior Circuit Judges.
The remainder are dealt with by Circuit Judges and Recorders, although
Recorders will normally handle less serious work than Circuit Judges.
The allocation is conducted according to directions given by the Lord
Chief Justice of England and Wales.
6.
History of the Crown Court
The Crown Court was established in 1972 by the Courts Act 1971 to replace
the courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions. The Crown Court is a permanent
unitary court across England and Wales, whereas the Assizes were periodic
local courts heard before judges of the Queen's Bench Division of the
High Court, who travelled across the seven circuits into which England
and Wales were divided, assembling juries in the Assize Towns and hearing
cases. The Quarter Sessions were local courts assembled four times a
year to dispose of criminal cases which were not serious enough to go
before a High Court judge.
A Crown Court and a County Court may be located in the same building
and use the same jurors. Since the establishment of Her Majesty's Courts
Service in April 2005 there is an increased sharing of facilities between
Crown Courts, County Courts and Magistrates' Courts.
7.
Physical layout
At the front of the court, on a raised platform, is a large bench. This
is where the judge sits. His rank can be distinguished by the colour
of gown worn, and different forms of address are appropriate for different
ranks of judge, with "your honour" being the most common.
The judge enters from a door at the side of the platform, preceded by
a cry of "court rise" from the usher or clerk of the court
who sits below and in front of the judge's bench. Everyone in the court
is expected to show his subjection to the Court by standing as the Judge
enters and until he sits down.
The clerk of the court, who sits facing the court (that is, the same
way as the judge) has a smaller desk on which sits a telephone, used
when communication is necessary with other parts of the court building
(for example the jury assembly area or the cell complex).
Also in the area just in front of the judge's bench is the sound recordist.
Proceedings will be recorded on a double deck cassette recorder with
one tape or the other being changed at intervals. This record may be
used if the case later goes to appeal.
Additionally there may be a court reporter who also records proceedings
on a stenograph, by typing keys as the witnesses speak, using special
shorthand. Alternatively, if there is no stenographer, a tapelogger
or shorthand writer will be there to operate the tapes and ensure that
a log of the proceedings is kept.
Facing the clerk will be the usher. If papers or other objects need
to be passed around the court, for example notes from members of the
jury, or evidence being shown to the jury, normally the usher will do
this and will be the only person in the court to walk around while the
court is in session.
Behind the usher, wearing black gowns and white wigs and facing the
judge, will be the prosecuting and defending barristers. The defending
barrister will usually be nearest the jury. They will also be likely
to have laptop computers in addition to files of papers relating to
the case which will be on the desk in front of them. Unlike the judge,
who speaks sitting down, the barristers always stand to address the
court.
Behind or alongside the barristers will sit the instructing solicitors,
which in the case of the prosecution will either be a representative
of the Crown Prosecution Service or policemen concerned with the case.
The latter is more common with trials, whilst the former is more apparent
in sentences, plea and case management hearings and other such cases.
At the back of the courtroom, behind the barristers, is a semi-partitioned
area known as the "dock". This is where the defendant or defendants
are placed. A custody officer will be sitting with them in the dock.
Also at the back of the court, often adjacent to the dock, is a small
area where the public can observe the proceedings. In some courts, notably
the Old Bailey, this area is positioned above the defendant.
Taking of notes is usually forbidden in the public gallery. Members
of the press must sit in the press bench, which is usually positioned
alongside the prosecuting barrister. Etiquette usually requires reporters
to identify themselves to the usher before taking position here and
starting to write.
Alongside the defending barrister is the jury box. This is where the
jury watch the case from. They will be called to it from the jury waiting
area (benches next to it) to be sworn in. Once sworn they always sit
in the same seat throughout the trial. If proceedings (such as legal
argument about the admissibility of evidence) take place which they
are not supposed to see occur, the usher will escort them into a room
just outside the courtroom (probably behind the dock). Only jurors and
ushers ever enter this room.
Opposite the jury box is the witness box. Witnesses stand facing the
jury and give their evidence so the jury can watch their demeanor while
giving it, which might help them decide if the witness is being truthful.
When the judge sends the jury to consider their verdict, the usher escorts
them to a small suite consisting of a large table, 12 chairs, lavatory
facilities, paper and pencils, a button with which to call the usher
and prominent notices about not revealing deliberations to anyone else.
The usher withdraws, and when the jury have arrived at a verdict, they
push the button.
During deliberations only limited contact is permitted with the outside
world, always via the usher. The jury will be permitted only (a) to
call for refreshments, (b) to pass a note to the judge, perhaps asking
for further guidance, or (c) to announce that they have reached a verdict.
The judge may decide to recall them to the court to address them again
at any time.
8.
Circuits
Originally, the court was divided into six circuits as follows:
|
|
|
|
The Judicial Branch in the USA
1. Courts in the United States are subdivided into two principal systems:
the federal courts, referred to as United States courts, and the state courts.
There is the Supreme Court of the United States, the members of which
are appointed for life by the president with the Senate approval and
federal courts which are created by the Congress. The Supreme Court
is composed of nine judges, who are called justices. It
is the highest court in the nation. It interprets
the laws and reviews them to determine whether they conform to the U.S.
Constitution. If the majority of justices rule that the law in question
violates the Constitution, the law is declared unconstitutional and
becomes invalid. This
process is known as judicial review. All lower courts follow the rulings
of the Supreme Court.
2. Judges of federal courts are appointed for life by the president
with the approval of the Senate. These courts are the district courts,
tribunals of general original jurisdiction; the courts of appeals, exercising
appellate jurisdiction over the district courts. A district court functions
in each of the more than 90 federal judicial districts. A court of appeals
functions in each of the 11 federal judicial circuits
and in the District of Columbia; there is also a more specialized court
with nationwide
jurisdiction known as the court of appeals for the federal circuit.
3. Federal Courts have the power to rule on both criminal and civil
cases. Criminal action under federal jurisdiction includes such cases
as treason, destruction
of government property, counterfeiting, hijacking, and narcotic violations.
Civil cases include violations of other people's rights, such as damaging
property, violating a contract, or making libelious statements. If found
guilty, a person may be required to pay a certain amount of money, called
damages, but he or she is never sent to prison. A convicted criminal,
on the other hand, may be imprisoned.
The Bill of Rights guarantees a trial by jury in all criminal cases.
A jury is a group of citizens - usually 12 persons - who make the decision
on a case.
4. Each state has an independent system of courts operating under the
constitution and laws of the state. The character and names of the courts
differ from state to state but as a whole they have general jurisdiction
and handle criminal and other cases that do not come under federal jurisdiction.
5. The state court systems include a number of minor courts with limited
jurisdiction. These courts dispose of
minor offenses and relatively small civil actions. Included in this
classification are police and municipal courts in cities and the courts presided over
by justices of the peace in rural areas.
Between the lower courts and the supreme appellate courts, in a number
of states, are intermediate
appellate courts. Courts of last resort, the highest appellate tribunals
of the states in criminal and civil cases and in law and equity, are
generally called supreme courts.
6. In some states, judges are publicly elected, in others they are appointed,
by state governors or by special bodies such as judicial councils -
though except at the lowest levels only lawyers are eligible for election
or appointment. Some judges hold office
for fixed periods, but others are installed for
life or up to a retiring age;
or there may be provision for 'recall'. Under
this arrangement a group of people dissatisfied
with a judge may collect signatures on a 'recall' petition, and if the
signatures reach the required number the people of the state (or county)
vote 'yes' or 'no' to the question whether the impugned judge
should be confirmed in office.
The US Supreme Court and Its Procedures
A Term of the
Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. Usually
Court sessions continue until late June or early July. The Term is divided
between "sittings," when the Justices hear cases and deliver
opinions, and intervening recesses,
when they consider the business before the Court and write opinions.
Sittings and recesses alternate at
approximately two-week intervals.
With rare exceptions, each side is allowed 30 minutes argument and
generally 22 to 24 cases are argued at one sitting. Since the majority
of cases involve the review of a decision of some other court, there
is no jury and no witnesses are heard. For each case, the Court has
before it a record of prior proceedings and printed briefs containing
the arguments of each side.
During the intervening recess period, the Justices study the argued
and forthcoming
cases and work on their opinions. Each week the Justices must also evaluate
more than 110 petitions seeking review of judgments of state and federal
courts to determine which cases are to be granted full review with oral
arguments by attorneys.
When the Court is sitting, public sessions begin promptly at 10 a.m.
and continue until 3 p.m., with a one-hour lunch recess starting at
noon. No public sessions are held on Thursdays or Fridays. On Fridays
during and preceding argument weeks, the Justices meet to discuss the
argued cases and to discuss and vote on petitions for review.
When the Court is in session, the 10 a.m. entrance of
the Justices into the Courtroom is announced by the Marshal. Those present,
at the sound of the gavel, arise
and remain standing until the robed Justices
are seated following the traditional chant: "The Honorable,
the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of
the United States. Oyez! Oyez!
Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme
Court of the United States, are admonished
to draw near and
give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United
States and this Honorable Court!"
Prior to hearing
oral argument, other business of the Court is transacted.
On Monday mornings this includes the release of
an Order List,
a public report of Court actions including the acceptance and rejection
of cases. Opinions are typically released on Tuesday and Wednesday mornings
and on the third Monday of each sitting, when the Court takes the Bench
but no arguments are heard.
The Court maintains this schedule each Term until all cases ready for
submission have been heard and decided. In May and June the Court sits
only to announce orders and opinions. The Court recesses at
the end of June, but the work of the Justices is unceasing.
During the summer they continue to analyze new petitions for review,
consider motions and applications, and must make preparations for cases scheduled for fall argument.
- Juristische Berufe
- Jбразование российского централизованного государства
- «Kaspi bank» АҚ-ның тарихы, жалпы сипаттамасы
- Keep your goals to yourself
- Kontrollarbeit
- Kremlin cash revives home loans
- La Russie
- Iсторiя української культури
- Iсторія економічної думки другій половині XVIII ст. і впродовж XIX ст
- Iтелектуальна власність
- Jahon moliyaviy inqirozi
- Jamaica
- JavaScript
- Java бағдарламалау тілі