Court System

The US Court System The courts are the overseers of the law. They administer it, they resolve disputes under it, and they ensure that it is and remains equal to and impartial for everyone. In the United States each state is served by the separate court systems, state and federal. Both systems are organized into three basic lev- – els of courts — trial courts, intermediate courts of appeal and a high court, or Supreme Court. The state courts are concerned essentially with cases arising under state law, and the federal courts with cases arising under federal law. Trial courts bear the main burden in the administration of justice.

Cases begin there and in most instances are finally resolved there. The trial courts in each state include: common plelis courts, which have general civil and criminal jurisdiction and smaller in importance municipal courts, county courts and mayors’ courts. The common pleas court is the most important of the trial courts. It is the court of general jurisdiction — almost any civil or criminal case, ’ serious or minor, may first be brought there, In criminal matters, the common pleas courts have exclusive jurisdiction over felonies (a felony is a serious crime for which the penalty is a penitentiary term or death).

In civil matters it has exclusive jurisdiction in probate, domestic relations and juvenile matters. The probate division deals with wills and the administration of estates, adoptions, guardianships. It grants marriage licenses to perform marriages. The domestic division deals with divorce, alimony, child custody. The juvenile division has jurisdiction over delinquent, unruly or neglected children and over adults, who neglect, abuse or contribute to the delinquency of children. When a juvenile (any person under 18) is accused of an offence, whether serious, or minor, the juvenile division has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

The main job of courts of appeal is to review cases appealed from trial courts to determine if the law was correctly interpreted and applied. The supreme court of each state is primarily a court of appeal and the court of last resort. The federal court structure is similar to the structure of the state court system. The trial courts in the federal system are the United States district courts. The United States courts of appeal are intermediate courts of appeal between the district courts and the United States Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation and the court of last resort. It consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, all of whom are appointed for life by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. The duty of the Supreme Court is to decide whether laws passed by Congress agree with the Constitution. The great legal issues facing the Supreme Court at present are Government involvement with religion, abortion and privacy rights, race and sex discrimination.

The state court system and the federal court system have similar codes of conduct, but they do have their differences. The state court system hears way more cases than the federal courts, and get more personally involved due to the issues being right in their own backyard. The state of California has 58 superior courts (trial courts) which reside in each of the 58 counties. It is here where any, and all, issues pertaining to civil and criminal cases, as well as family, probate, and juvenile cases are heard.

This is where the bulk of California’s judiciary justice is served. If a case is appealed it is taken up the ladder to one of California’s six Courts of Appeal. According to courtinfo. ca. gov (2011), “The State legislature divided the state geographically into six appellate districts, each containing a Court of Appeal. ” (About California Courts, para. 2).

The Supreme Court of California sits at the apex of authority in the state’s judicial system (courtinfo. a. gov, 2011). Cases that have been questioned in the Court of Appeal must be reviewed by the Supreme Court, as well as any case in which a trial court has issued the death penalty. The federal court system has a similar structure to the state court system. The lowest level is the federal district court. The district court hears the civil and criminal cases that pertain to the potential unconstitutionality or impartiality of a specific state court.

Federal accusations of fraud and drug crimes can also be seen here. The next level, similar to the state court system, is the U. S. Court of Appeals. This is the intermediary appellate court level where cases that have been appealed are reviewed. Atop this is the United States Supreme Court, the highest form of authority in the country. It is here where few cases are officially sent to trial, but instead cases may be reviewed by one or a group of the justices and sent back down the line.

Puerto Rico had a distinct legal system to that of American legal system till the American solders landed in 1898 . The Puerto Rico’s structure including civil law rules, institutions, procedures and legal culture were undergone important transformation. There is a change in the civil law jurisdiction to the civil law-mixed law and other areas such as legal structures, processes, culture and actors. This paper examines the current legal system of the Puerto Rico and critically examines 3 states (Virginia Islands, Hawaii and New Jersey) court structures.

It also provides the proposal for the court structure of Puerto Rico on par with these 3 states. Brief introduction of Puerto Rico: Puerto Rico is a self-governing commonwealth in association with the United States. The President is USA is the chief of state and elected Governor. It has control over the internal affairs and without the interference of the USA. The major differences between Puerto Rico and the 50 states include exemption from some aspects of the Internal Revenue Code, its lack of voting representation in either house of the U.

S congress (Senate and House of Representatives), the ineligibility of Puerto Ricans to vote in presidential elections, and its lack of assignation of some revenue reserved for the states. Judicial system in Puerto Rica is directed by Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is comprised of 7 judges (a chief justice and 6 associate justices) named by the Governor. The structure of Judicial System includes a Court of Appeals, Superior Court, a District Court (Civil & Criminal), and Municipal Court. There are 12 judicial districts.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rica also has a district court comparable to those of the state of US. Each district court has a least one district judge and can have more than a score of district judges, as well as a clerk, a United States Attorney, a United States Marshall, one or more United States Magistrates, bankruptcy judges, probation officers, court reporters, and their staff. The federal government, located in San Juan, is represented by 2 district judges and the procurator, who is named by the President of the United States. The Federal court has final authority of the ELA.

Distinctive features of the American Judicial System includes the adversary system, the common law system, predefined rules for conducting litigation, reporting of judicial proceedings and the publication of court opinions. There are 94 federal judicial districts, including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. The appeal courts take the appeals from the district courts located in the circuit and also from the federal administrative agencies.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary . The judicial system of Puerto Rico is based upon Spanish Law upon which is based the on United States judicial system. The Puerto Rico legal court system includes a district court, a superior court, an appellate court and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court as apex court. Decisions of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court can be appealed to the Federal Court for Puerto Rico and to the U. S. Supreme Court as a lost resort. Hawaii state judicial system features appellate courts and trial courts.

Appellate courts include the Hawaii Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals and the trial courts include the Circuit, Family and District courts and functions four judicial districts. The judicial system of Virginia Islands consists of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the General District Courts and the Circuit Courts . The structure of New Jersey’s court system is very simple featuring Municipal courts, Tax Court, state Superior Court, which includes the trial courts, an Appellate Division and the New Jersey Supreme Court.

All the above mentioned court systems such as Hawaii, Virginia islands and New Jersey has different set of court structures . Except in the criminal and constitutional fields, Puerto Rico’s legal system substantially remained that of the Spanish civil law . Puerto Rico state’s highest court: The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is the highest court of the Puerto Rico, which is analogous to one of the U. S state supreme courts established in San Juan. The ultimate judicial authority lies within Puerto Rico for interpretation and deciding on the question of local commonwealth law.

The Constitution and the laws of Puerto Rico determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and works similar way to the state Supreme Courts in the United States. It has concurrent jurisdiction to interpret federal laws, unless the Supremacy Clause requires otherwise. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico used the common law to resolve the private-law issues and later drifted to methodical research integrating the civil law into the civilian context . Comparison of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico with the Virgin Islands, Hawaii and New Jersey’s Supreme Courts.

The Supreme Court of Hawaii hears appeals for writs of certiorari to the Intermediate Court of Appeals and applications for transfer from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. It also hears reserved questions of law from the circuit courts, the land court, and the tax appeal court, certified question from the federal courts, applications for writs, complaints on elections and it makes rules of practice and procedures for all state courts, licenses, regulates and disciplines attorneys and judges. The New Jersey Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and six associate justices.

It takes up the appeals from the lower courts involving capital cases and cases in which a panel of appellate judges has disagreed. It also hears the cases of great public importance. The Superior Court has broad jurisdiction in addressing the legal needs of the Virgin Islands community. The Court hears all local trial matters including civil, criminal, family, probate, landlord-tenant, small claims and traffic. It also acts as a court of appeals for decisions of all governmental officers and agencies . Puerto Rico’s Appellate Courts: U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is the appellate court for the District of Puerto Rico.

The Circuit Court of Appeals established in 1994 sits in San Juan and it is the intermediary level between the courts of first instance and the Supreme Court. With the consent of senate 33 justices were named by the Governor for the Circuit Court of Appeals. Most sittings are held in Boston, but the court sits for two weeks each year in Old San Juan, Puerto Rico and occasionally at other locations within the circuit. First Circuit is the smallest of the thirteen United States courts of appeals Composition of U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is five active (six authorized) and four senior judges. Juan R.

Torruella is the chief judge of the Puerto Rico duty station appointed by the Reagan. The established procedure for the eligibility of the Chief Judge is that he must be below the age of 65, serving court actively at least one year and have not served as a Chief Judge earlier. The appellate courts for the other states in comparison are U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for Hawaii. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for Virgin Islands and U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for New Jersey. The Hawaii appellate courts are comprised of the Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii hears all appeals from trial courts and state agencies in the State of Hawaii composed of 6 judges. It is having discretionary powers to hear cases without prior suit in civil cases or cases in circuit court or the tax appeal court and also when the parties agreed upon the facts of the controversy. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for Virgin Islands composed of 14 active judges. The chief judge should have the same eligibility criteria as if the Puerto Rico has. U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for New Jersey is composed of 14 active judges.

Puerto Rico’s Municipal Courts Municipal courts have the jurisdiction to hear minor civil and less serious criminal cases with in the region under the powers conferred by the constitution and the other law . Puerto Rico’s municipal judges, serving for five years, and justices of the peace, in rural areas, decide cases involving local ordinances. Municipal Courts of New Jersey usually has jurisdiction to take cases such as motor vehicle and parking tickets, minor criminal-type offenses, municipal ordinance offenses and other offenses including fish and game violations.

Municipal Court judges are usually appointed by the Mayor of the municipality, with the advice and consent of the council, and serve a term of three years and eligibility set by the statute and he should have 5 years of practice experience. The Municipal Court of the Virgin Islands’ was named as the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands and having jurisdiction over all civil actions and criminal matters. Territorial court is now changed to superior court by means of Bill No. 25-0213. Hawaii does not have Municipal Courts.

County and local ordinance and traffic violations are tried in state circuit and district courts. Puerto Rico’s Major Trial Courts: The nine superior courts are the Puerto Rico’s Major trial courts. The term of the superior court judges is 12-years. The superior courts were divided into 13 districts in 2003 and have original jurisdiction of not exceeding $10,000 in civil cases and also in minor criminal cases. District courts also hear preliminary motions in more serious criminal cases . The Hawaii trial courts include the Circuit, Family and District courts.

The courts are structured geographically: Puerto Rico constitutes one judicial district and held at Mayaguez, Ponce and San Juan according to United States Code Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5, Sec. 119. The Hawaii appellate courts are comprised of the Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The trial courts include the Circuit, Family and District courts. The Virginia’s court structure has District Court, at the lowest level, to the Supreme Court at the highest level. The Circuit Courts is at the second lowest level, and the Court of Appeals at the next level.

The Chief Justice and the Supreme Court will function as the administrative body for the entire Virginia court system. Structure of New Jersey’s court system is the simplest in among all the court structures. Municipal courts, Tax Court, state Superior Court, which includes the trial courts, an Appellate Division and the New Jersey Supreme Court are the basic type of the courts. Judges appointment: Justices for The Supreme Court, The Appellate Court, The Court of First Instance (composing of Superior Court and Municipal Court) appointed by the Governor of Puerto Rico with the consent (majority vote) of the Senate and retires at the age of 70.

The Circuit Court of Appeals includes 33 justices. Justices and judges in US are appointed under the Article III of the constitution by the president of the US with the majority vote of senate for life time . Judicial and Attorney ethical standards The Code of Conduct for United States Judges According to the code of conduct duties of judge are 1. Upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. 2. Avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. 3. Performing the duties of the office impartially and diligently. 4.

Carrying out extrajudicial activities for improving the legal system and the administration of justice. 5. Regulating extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties. 6. Regularly filing reports of compensation received for law-related and extra-judicial activities. 7. Refraining from political activity . Attorney ethical standards 28 C. F. R. PART 77—ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR ATTORNEYS FOR THE GOVERNMENT The Department of Justice makes sure that its attorneys perform their duties in accordance with the highest ethical standards through implementing 28 U. S. C.

530B and guide attorneys concerning the guidelines imposed on Department attorneys by 28 U. S. C. 530B. Conclusion: The Puerto Rico courts and legal structure had under gone a drastic transformation under the U. S rule. Now it has its own court structure with some limitations. In spite of very simple court system the New Jersey’s legal system is effective. Two step appellate review process in Virginia court system is also a good for the better scrutiny of the case . The courts systems of Hawaii, Virginia Islands and New Jersey have a good court structure and can be ideal for the court structure of Puerto Rico.

Reference: 1. Carlos R. Soltero, (2006) Latinos and American law: landmark Supreme Court cases, University of Texas Press. 2. William Miller, (2006), Evolving Internet reference resources, Haworth Press. 3. Virginia Courts”. Virginia Judicial System. 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-04. http://www. courts. state. va. us/courts/courts. html 4. State Court Caseload Statistics, 2003, Retrieved from http://www. ncsconline. org/D_Research/csp/2003_Files/2003_SCCS_Charts1. pdf 5. Juan R. Torruella, (1985), The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico: The Doctrine of Separate and Unequal, Editorial UPR.

6. Vernon V. Palmer, (2001), Mixed jurisdictions worldwide: the third legal family, Cambridge University Press. 7. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Division of St. Thomas/St. John, Retrieved on April 2, 2009, http://www. visuperiorcourt. org/ 8. Timothy F. Fautsko, (2003), Workload assessment model for the Puerto Rico municipal court, Retrived on April,2. http://contentdm. ncsconline. org/cgi-bin/showfile. exe? CISOROOT=/spcts&CISOPTR=105 98. Puerto Rico – Judicial system, (2007), Advameg, Inc. Retrieved on April 2, 2009, http://www. city-data.

com/states/Puerto-Rico-Judicial-system. html 10. Leonidas Ralph Mecham, The Federal Court System, in the United States, Retrieved from http://www. uscourts. gov/library/internationalbook-fedcts2. pdf 11. Leonidas Ralph Mecham, The Federal court system in the United States, Retrieved form http://www. uscourts. gov/library/internationalbook-fedcts2. pdf 12. Order No. 2216–99, 64 FR 19275, Apr. 20, 1999. 13. Marie Wayson (2008), Virginia Court System: Function and Purpose, Retived on April 2, 2009, http://www. associatedcontent. com/article/724285/virginia_court_system_function_and. html

Introduction

A) The role and function of the Magistrates’ court:

All criminal cases begin in the Magistrates’ Court and are heard by three magistrates or a district judge, but the court also has jurisdiction over certain civil matters (JEW, 2012). For the most part however, the majority of cases heard in the Magistrates’ Court are criminal in nature. There are no juries in the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates’ Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over summary offences (e.g. motoring offences, minor criminal damage, common assault, drunk and disorderly conduct) and more serious offences (e.g. theft, serious assaults and drug offences), however the latter are often referred to as ‘either way’ cases as the court or the accused may choose to have these tried in the Crown Court (JEW, 2012). Certain matters are beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court -relating to the seriousness of the offence, these include murder, rape and arson. These are referred to as indictable offences. Indictable offences will be heard in the Crown Court as the court of first instance.

The jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court is also limited by sentencing power which is confined to sentences amounting to less than ?5000, unpaid community services or six months imprisonment (twelve months for two or more offences). Magistrates’ Courts are able to give combination sentences, such as a fine and community service. Often cases are heard in the Magistrates’ Court and referred to the Crown court for sentencing where the sentence required exceeds the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court (UKCLE, 2012).

The power of the Magistrates’ Court with regards to the appropriate offences therefore is to determine bail, guilt or innocence and depending on the severity, the sentence. Magistrates also play a role in committal hearings where they must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant referral to the Crown court. For example, in the case of murder the magistrate will not make a finding of guilt, however will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a case. This is generally confined to an evaluation of the paper-based evidence submitted, i.e. the docket and based on an evaluation of all this evidence will decide whether or not to pass the case onto the Crown Court.

The Magistrates’ Court, through its administrative officers also performs important such as public funding applications and witness orders. This forms a part of the civil jurisdiction that the Court has. The Magistrates’ Court also has jurisdiction over matters involving offenders between the ages of 10 and 18, licensing procedures and certain matters relating to family proceedings, such as domestic violence, relationship breakdowns, adoption, care proceedings and truancy. Therefore, the Magistrates’ Court plays an important role in family matters and the administration of the Youth Court.

The role and function of County Court

The County Court deals with civil (non-criminal matters) which arise when an individual, natural or juristic believes their rights have been infringed. These include claims based on contract and tort where there is an award on the basis of a wrong done to the claimant. Certain County Courts also deal with matters of insolvency, bankruptcy, wills, trusts and estates (where the value of the matter is not in excess of ?30000), matters under the Race Relations Act 1976 and any other matter that the parties agree to have heard in the County Court. Magistrates have jurisdiction to hear certain civil cases, however the more complex cases are generally referred to the County Court (JEW, 2012).

Most County Courts are assigned to either a circuit judge or a district judge. Circuit judges are senior to district judges and generally deal with more complex matters, generally hearing matters worth more than ?15000, although they do have monetary jurisdiction over smaller disputes worth between ?5000 and ?15000. District judges generally oversee a number of cases in order to ensure that they are running effectively, although they do hear cases themselves. District judges deal with less complex matters than circuit judges such as repossession and assessment of damages in uncontested matters. Although civil matters usually deal with the payment of monetary damages, County Court judges do have the jurisdiction to order the arrest and prosecution of any party that does not comply with an order of court. The majority of cases are not heard before a jury (with exceptions being libel and slander trials) and judges decide these matters on a civil burden of proof, i.e. a balance of probabilities.

County Courts also deal with certain family proceedings, however these are generally dealt with in specialist courts. Family circuit judges deal with two kinds of cases, namely private cases involving disputes between parents and their children and public cases, dealing with the involvement of the local council in family matters (DoJ, 2012).

Decisions of the County Court may be appealed to the appropriate Division of the High Court. The County Court Monetary Claims Centre provides essential support for the County Court and deals with designated money claims.

Comparison

The main comparison between the two courts is the subject matter jurisdiction over which they preside, namely civil versus criminal. The County Court deals exclusively with matters of civil liability whilst the Magistrates’ Court deals with both civil and criminal matters, however the majority of cases heard in the Magistrates’ Court are criminal in nature. To the extent therefore that the County Court cannot hear criminal matters, the Magistrates’ Court represents the criminal equivalent. To this extent they both represent the court of first instance to the extent that they have jurisdiction over the matter, which may be limited by geographical jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction and monetary jurisdiction (in the case of the magistrates’ court, this includes sentencing jurisdiction). This is particularly evident in the level of civil liability complexity dealt with in Magistrates’ Court, which are simple applications not requiring extended adjudication. The County Court also does not hear matters of young persons, unlike the Magistrates’ Court who hears matters in the Youth Court separately from the Adult court.

There are different burdens of proof in each court, with civil matters requiring the claimant prove the existence of the claim on a balance of probabilities, which is arguably higher than the standard in the criminal court which requires the state, represented by a prosecutor, prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Magistrates’ Court have a different method of adjudication, either through a district judge or through a panel of three justices of the peace along with a law clerk to ensure that all relevant matters of law are considered in adjudication, in contrast to the County Court where the matters are heard by only legally trained judges.

B) Position of the Court in the English Court Hierarchy

For the respective subject-matter jurisdiction, both courts represent the court of first instance which means that they are the first step in legal proceedings (excluding the additional specialist tribunals) in their matter. Although the Magistrates’ Court can be the court of first instance for simple civil matters, generally this is a role performed by the County Court (JEW, 2012).

Appeals from the Magistrates’ Court are directed to either the Crown Court which has jurisdiction over criminal matters and limited jurisdiction over civil matters both on appeal and as a court of first instance. The Crown Court is the only court that has subject-matter jurisdiction over indictment cases.

Appeals may also be directed to the appropriate Division of the High Court for civil and criminal matters, acting, also as a court of first instance in certain civil matters. Appeals from the County Court are heard by the High Court and in certain cases can appeal to the Court of Appeals’ civil division. The High Court consists of three divisions, namely the Queen’s Bench, the Chancery and Family division. These are not necessarily separate courts, but rather have distinct practices and procedures designed specifically for their individual purposes. The Queen’s Bench hears matters of tort and contract, and serves as a commercial, admiralty and administrative court, whilst the family division hears matters on matrimonial proceedings, proceedings relating to the welfare of children and probate service, and the Chancery deals with matters of corporate law, companies and patents (JEW, 2012; DoJ, 2012).

From the High Court and the Crown Court, the next highest court is the Court of Appeals with respective divisions for criminal and civil matters. The Court of Appeals only hears matters of appeal and does not function as a court of first instance in any matter. The Criminal Division only hears matters of appeal from the Crown Court, whilst the Civil Division hears civil appeals.

Appeals from Court of Appeal go to Supreme Court which functions as the highest supreme court in the country. In matters of human rights may be further appealed to the European Court of Justice. The Supreme Court was formed by the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005, prior to which the highest court was the House of Lords. In exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court may hear appeals from the High Court. The Supreme Court has the right to interpret matters of European law and the European Convention on Human Rights, as imported into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 as they apply to U.K law.

C) Roles of People within the Court During the Visit

Magistrates Court:

District Judges: adjudicates the case on the basis of the facts presented by either the plaintiff or the prosecution and must have at least two years experience as a deputy district judge and at least seven years experience as either a barrister or solicitor. These judges deal directly with complex issues of law and sit alone as opposed to a panel (justices of the peace and court clerk).

Prosecution: In criminal matters, the person represents the case against the defendant on behalf of the state.

Solicitor: Representative of the plaintiff/applicant or defendant/respondent and is responsible for acting on behalf of their client in the legal proceedings.

Defendant: The person accused of the crime in a criminal matter. In this case, the defendant was on bail and therefore sat next to their defense lawyer. There was one matter where the defendant was in state custody, and in this case they sat next to a correctional officer.

Depositions clerk: Ensuring that the correct persons are in court at the correct times, as well as communicating with the defendant or parties to the dispute about the proceedings. The clerk records the proceedings and calls each witness to give evidence when necessary.

County Court:

District Judge: adjudicates and decides the facts of the case, however for the duration of this visit, the cases before the judge seemed started and uncontroversial as he moved through them quite quickly. District judges are junior to a circuit judges and hear mostly uncontested claims, mortgage repossessions and cases allocated to the small claims track.

Depositions Clerk: Ensuring that the correct persons are in court at the correct times, as well as communicating with the defendant or parties to the dispute about the proceedings.

Solicitor: Representatives of the applicant or respondent and is responsible for acting on behalf of their client in legal proceedings.

Applicant: The person who instituted the claim.

Respondent: The person who was defending the claim.

D) Perception After the Court Visit

A surprising factor after the visit to these courts, was how quickly matters were dealt with on the court roll. I was expecting more action, yet throughout the visit there was limited interaction with the facts of the case, particularly in the County Court which was very formal and procedural, in certain cases there was no presence by the Applicant or Respondent and the solicitor in these cases dealt exclusively with the matter. There was little interaction between the members of the courtroom and the judge scrutinized the papers, there was little evidence or argument given in support or defense of the matter.

Another surprising element was the emphasis on procedure in the courts and of the little discussion of the facts of the cases that took place, most were procedural matters, and the filing of motions and applications. In the Magistrates’ Court, there was similarly very little engagement with the facts of any of the cases and most were quick reviews of pending cases, dealing with bail applications or remands and other administrative matters, all of which were dealt with very quickly and the morning session saw a good number of cases dealt with superficially on matters of procedure.

To a certain extent, the expectation of the court process was that it was going to be very dramatic, however this is clearly not the case as matters moved quickly through the role with minimum discourse on the subject matter and there were no full trials scheduled on the days of my visit. I was further surprised by the proceedings in court to the extent that there are constantly persons coming and going from the courtroom, and to a certain extent this was a more relaxed environment than I was originally expecting. Whereas my original perception that the court environment was going to be very serious, I was surprised to see that the parties in the courtroom were professional and relaxed. There was no hype about the roles that they were playing and they were just getting on with their jobs.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

European Convention of Human Rights

Human Rights Act 1998

Secondary Sources

Judiciary of England and Wales (2012) Structure of the Court System [online] Available on: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/introduction-to-justice-system/court-structure [Accessed 19 November 2012]

Judiciary of England and Wales (2012) County Court [online] Available on: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/county-court/county-court [Accessed 19 November 2012]

Department of Justice (2012) About Courts. [online] Available on: http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts/courts [Accessed 19 November 2012]

UKCLE (2012) The Jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court [online] Available on: http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/students/resources-for-students/jurisdiction/ [Accessed 19 November 2012]