1Paul M. Perell , StareDecisis and techniques of legal reasoning (The Canadian Legal Research and Writing Guide) assessedJanuary 21, 2018 2 BudgetReview 2017 (Republic of South Africa)

treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2017/review/FullBR.pdf>January 21, 20183HMTreasury  (Treasury Minutes) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415599/48383_Cm_9034_Web_Acc.pdfassessed January 21, 20184Robert Mendick, Former Met commissioner Sir PaulStephenson (The Telegraph)< http://www.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9545415/Former-Met-commissioner-Sir-Paul-Stephenson-visits-British-court.html>assessed 21, January 20185 DanielForbes, Men of Magna Carta: Right, Might and Depravity (Google Books)assessed 22, January 20186Adam Wagner, Article 6 (Article 6, The Right To Trial) https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-6-of-the-echr/>assessed 22, January 20187 TomBingham ,The Business of Judging (Google Books)

google.co.uk/books?id=wGxCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA411&lpg=PA411&dq=%E2%80%9CIf+we+never+do+anything+which+has+not+been+done+before,+we+shall+never+get+anywhere.

+The+law+will+stand+still+while+the+rest+of+the+world+goes+on,+and+that+will+be+bad+for+both%E2%80%9D.&source=bl&ots=zKcY73XNCB&sig=DkmrGhLUi3sSTn_f3EgvsQKGNEE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigseOjserYAhWGDsAKHRNSBOEQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CIf%20we%20never%20do%20anything%20which%20has%20not%20been%20done%20before%2C%20we%20shall%20never%20get%20anywhere.%20The%20law%20will%20stand%20still%20while%20the%20rest%20of%20the%20world%20goes%20on%2C%20and%20that%20will%20be%20bad%20for%20both%E2%80%9D.

&f=false>assessed 22, January 2018Things have certainly changed since the 19thCentury with the acceptance that Parliament and the Monarchy would neverinterfere with legal processes. The formal approach of meetings betweenMinisters and the Judiciary is beneficial. The sense of justice and fairnesswith transparency of coherent procedures is and will only allow the rule of lawto evolve just as society has. Lord Denning once said that “If we never do anythingwhich has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere.

The law will standstill while the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for both”7. Icould not agree more as we are the “happier of other lands” and it is essentialthat we maintain continuity exemplifying virtues beyond imagination just asLord Denning did.  In conclusion I would say that if any reform is to be madeafter the departure of UK out of the European Union is that the Judiciarydevelop a codified constitution with a mandate of there being a separation ofpowers with the Judiciary being free of the other two branches of state i.e.The Government and the Parliament. A clear distinction of separation of powerwould allow a balanced understanding of how they all operate as that willultimately ensure that the rule of law prevails.

A new enthusiastic approach towards the consideration of theappointments of ethnic minority and the inclusion of more women has gainedmomentum as a strong talking point for many. But bearing the strain oflegislative processes is no easy feat for anyone, as a strict view ofcandidates only being considered for selection purely off merit has rightlytaken precedence over a new enthusiasm for diversity and any other externalpressures. Objectively, a fixed criteria, one solely based on qualifications,integrity, ability, efficiency, character and many more guarantee thatimpartiality is guaranteed in one’s decision making. Authorities at Europeantribunals also guarantee the same impartial approach .i.e.

as Article 6 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights clearly states that “in the determinationof his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him,everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time byan independent and impartial tribunal established by law”6The UK including specifically England and Wales are nowknown for their judicial independence due to past reformation. The last radicalreform was of the UK government’s decision to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor.Nevertheless, to the surprise of many in Government, the then prime minister,Tony Blair ultimately decided to not discard but affectively modify the role ofLord Chancellor despite the role dating back to the 7th century.  Individuals such as Lord Irvine were not insupport of any judicial reformation being made. The initial plans for reformhad led to many suggesting that the initial speed of the move to establish changewas not thought through well enough because of the negative opinion amongst thewider general public. However, being free of any improper influence fromexternal sources such as media is a strong characteristic embedded in the UK’sJudiciary, as light is now being shed on broadening diversity as the verynature of the selection process has been questioned. An initiative for reform for fundamental change and aguarantee of integration of funding and new ideas to improve the governance ofour Judiciary will never be asserted without a political colossus, materialchange of political capital which will be used to improve and get to the pointof making sure that discipline and tactics are also implemented to the changeof our Judiciary.

The people of the United Kingdom expressing themselvesdemocratically could also shift the balance and relationship between the problemsof damaging the legitimacy of our contemporary reality where concern of ourlimited form of law can be justified by democratic principles. On the contrary, the self-governing transition may take sometime but a good, practical, distinctive, multi layered democratic set of principleswill be to have a mandate in a new published legal manifesto. However, thecontinued explosion of statutory instruments and rules will decrease as theparliament will have sole control with developing new legislative text such asregulations that will solely benefit the British Judiciary system with a mutualstanding recognition of imposing a singular standard of realisation that highenvironmental standards and British courts adjudicating which can only make theUnited Kingdom stronger. We are living in a society today were in economic andpolitical theory, it can be argued that Britain is not master of its owndestiny anymore.

Essentially, it is the wish of Parliament and the Monarchy forBritish law to once again reign supreme. The law is constantly evolving and youcannot cut and paste, it will be difficult to nail down the scale of systematicstructural elements as 60 % of law made up last year was EU law. Once we leave,it will become English law but with great respect, developing regulativestructural elements will potentially be unending but British law is relativelystraight forward.

Sovereignty is about outcomes and an evolving pattern isabsolutely always necessary. Once the UK leaves the EU it will give theparliament sole sovereignty which will only benefit the constructive role ofUK’s democratic institution. An ability to act alone will enable the evolutionof England’s Judiciary. The legislative dimension is currently shared withBritain being in the EU, with a lot of corridor bargaining being made with somuch of the parliamentary proceedings being about executing decisions in the EUwith a limited amount of “important” discussions being solely based around theEU and not the UK. As the wheels of history turn, it is important to acknowledgethat the whole idea of structural reform could potentially take centuries tomanifest and evolve, regardless of the exit from the European Union. Rewritingthe DNA code of democracy for the British Judicial system will not manifestwithout a fight, but from whom. It is still unclear as to whether themultilateral relationships which have pulled together a quilt of internationallaw have eroded national sovereignty.

Are the courts losing power to the now secular multiculturalinflux of individuals acting off religious principles? The parliament will surelydisagree, but the United Kingdom has always been of a constitutionallyChristian heritage as the church will always have visible ties to thestate.  In contrast, the UK is not asecular state and the Monarchy who are historically Christian, once promised toabide and maintain the rule of God. Article 1 of the Magna Carta states that”We grant unto God and by this our present charter we have confirmed to us”5.So in addition, a British Judiciary without its principles derived from itsChristian heritage may lose its God given expression of necessary complexinnovation and spiritual moral standard which has in affect created the pyramidstructure we now see today. The great problem is persuading our new generation of understandingthe dramatic events of dramatics and theatrics of the English legal system in awhole with .i.e.

firstly, the clothes judges and barristers leave theirordinary lives to wear and the imposed force of putting an individual into anarena, exercising the performance of legal rituals and placing an individualback into their normal life. The whole tone of society does not scream with onevoice anymore as communities are now vastly multicultural with many faithswhich are rightly entitled to be taken into consideration for the avoidance ofunavoidable conflict.  As stated above,the upmost respect is entitled to these views as the modern Judge is expectedto be the guardian of society’s morality. Secular objectives draw controversybecause of the limits drawn by the Judiciary, as public policy of English lawwill now decide the validity of a so called arranged marriage, forced marriageetc as Lex Loci Celebrationis (Law of the land) is public policy of the Englishlegal system. The great dispute is to distinguish whether a basic humanattitude can underpin all Judiciary systems in England and Wales such as thereasonable man test, which is standard and can be interpreted as auniversalistic principle for this country. Is our democratic judiciary’s senseof dependency to the laws of the 13th and 14th centurystill needed? Furthermore, is the judiciary’s customary oral system that isbased on precedent feel outdated, with a potentially backward thirst forstructural changes and legal principles just like the old Roman law, do thesechanges need to be implemented and made to be more prudent?. Ultimately, inother respects the central essence of the English judiciary is pertaining toinvisible visibility, which in Latin is incorporeal (rights that cannot be seenor touched, but are still enforceable by law). However, from the House of Commons to chat shows on TV youwill notice that we as British citizens have a very antagonistic attitudetoward one another.

Consciously or subconsciously, just as our judiciary, wehave been made to see and think in black and white and that can lead to anaggressive confrontational attitude in binary thinking of right and wrong. Butif we take into consideration the advantages of our politically drivenjudiciary, we can be proud and say that all and everyone are answerable to the rulesof law. The crown, politicians and ministers included.There is an important distinction to be made as the UK hasno written legal binding constitution, but nonetheless; there are advantagessuch as the absence of a knock on the door at night, as without a legalwarrant, the police cannot detain you unlawfully or subject you to arbitrarypunishment. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which has been a feature of Englishcommon law since before Magna Carta is known as the “the great and efficaciouswrit in all manner of illegal confinement” which in simple terms means that thecustodian is to present proof of his or her authority which in effect allowsthe Judiciary system to determine whether the custodian is acting beyond his orher authority. When the conclusion is ultimately met, the prisoner will bereleased. So the lack of fear and build-up of certainty ultimately leads to ahuge amount of trust in social life. However, historically, there has always been an inverserelationship between the importance of case law that is taken up by the UK’scourts of law and the volumes of matters that are brought before court itself.

As such it is important to know that the courts in the UK are geared towards anadversarial system i.e. one person wins and one person loses. However,conversely, it could be a subconscious general view of society that the Englishlegal system may not be systematic enough and filled with a politicalphilosophy that hinders further evolution. The tradition has been one ofcontinuity yes, but there has not been one single profound event that haschanged the course of history for the United Kingdom. It has not lost a war; ithas not had a revolution or had to gain independence so there has not been aneed for further input in development of fundamental principles in theJudiciary. Arguably, the English legal system is un-patterned and has not grownwith a blueprint which has enabled the courts to develop mechanisms to helpdeal with conflictive issues that may help with the timeliness of proceedings.

As it is still unclear as to which decisions processed are the most authoritativeregardless of there being a court hierarchy. At present, it could be argued that the shackles need to beremoved as the general consensus is that the formal court structure in Englandand Wales is “outdated and requires reform”. Few may dismiss the need for morereform and argue that the judiciary has developed and evolved over the pastthousand years with an emphasis on continuing to develop and meet society’sneeds and expectations. I would imagine that fundamentally, the goal whenuniversally conceptualising the word ‘court’ in the UK, the incentive would nowbe to broaden the perception of a civilians thinking so he or she is notlimited by the mental constraints of negative press from public figures such asSir Paul Stephenson, but ultimately understand, if the funding be available tothe courts, a paperless Judiciary system could be achieved where the casemanagement of paper files and obsolete management systems will be a thing ofthe past.

  It is no secret that the judicial system needs to bemodernised with a closer monitor on the timeliness of hearings, statisticaldata provided to judges, settlement rates and the overall performance ofpractice methods. But having said all of that, the inclusion of new IT softwareto help manage and shorten the duration of time used to process legal data,must go hand in hand as it would make a big difference to the generaleffectiveness of the court system. On the contrary, new court buildings andlocations should also remain an essential priority in implementing ageneralised strategy in moving forward with the times of developing asuccessful, potent and functional judiciary system. These ideas could play apivotal role in increasing the complexity and specialisation of minimisingpaper based work load inside the courts general offices.

It is fair to say that all external perspectives are usuallynever underplayed and hardly ever undermined as public figures such as MrStephenson tend to have a grander vision for the UK’s theme of enhancement ofeffective distinctive proceedings. Some may argue that these perspectives arealso keenly felt by the general public but nevertheless, it may be indicativeof a larger problem that the United Kingdom may have, such as recognising thatwe have many responsibilities, with one of them being legal imperialism.  Nevertheless, broadly speaking, the High Court has twodivisions, the Criminal and the civil division. The Criminal division onlyhears appeals from the Crown Court whereas the civil division hears appealsfrom the County Courts and High Court of Justice.  In a recent article, Sir Paul Stephenson, theformer Met Police Commissioner argued that ‘I have seen nothing to show thatthe courts are anything other than slow, bureaucratic and hugely frustrating’ 4He concluded his assault of the judiciary process with stating that the courtsare “More designed to suit the needs of its constituent elements rather thanthe citizens it should serve”. These statements are impartial and clearlyobjective with a clear understanding on what audience he is addressing, so thatleads to the question of whether our national self-interest is now completelyintertwined with Europe? Or is our position now measured and without essence ofenough rational to see the possible cracks in our legal system.In the United Kingdom, primarily England and Wales, there isa structured hierarchy of courts that deal with a broad amount of cases.Firstly, family proceedings and youth court matters all fall under the MagistratesCourt umbrella.

 The higher risk casesare heard in the Crown Courts by a trial Judge and Jury following committal bya Magistrate Court. The High Courts of Justice, together with the Court ofAppeal are the senior courts of England and Wales. The High Court deals withcases of high value, high importance and significantly more substantiality.Whereas, the Court of Appeal is second only to the Supreme Court, the highestcourt in England and Wales. However, it was published on the Ministry of Justice’s settlementat the spending Review 2015 that the Government was able to spend £4 trillionon its priorities over the next 4 years. It was documented that £1.3 billion2of investment would be applied to improve the transformation of the prisonestate to better support the rehabilitation of prisoners. In addition, £700million investment was to be applied to the courts and tribunal system tocreate “a more proportionate justice system” which will help increase savingsof £200 million a year from 2019-20203.

Moreover, the interpretation of pre-existing rules andvaried procedures used such as ‘Stare Decisis’ (To stand by decided matters)applied to concrete live situations in court frankly conceptualised a strongform of justice.  In the case of McWilliam v. Morris, 1942 O.

W.N. 447 at 448-91,where he said: “The doctrine of Stare Decisis is one long recognized as aprinciple of our law. Sir Frederick Pollock, in his FirstBook of Jurisprudence, 6th ed.

, and p. 321: “The decisions of anordinary superior court are binding on all courts of inferior rank within thesame jurisdiction, and though not absolutely binding on courts of co-ordinateauthority nor on the court itself, will be followed in the absence of strongreason to the contrary”.There has always been a growing pressure to implement changein the court structure but until society’s need for reform with observersquestioning the institutional legitimacy of the formal structure of thejudiciary system, it was respected and revered because of decisions viewed asprincipled rather than motivated by self-importance and constituency. Regardlessof whether the decision was unpopular it was inevitably respected and accepted,as one of the courts most precious traits was arguably it’s perceivedlegitimacy and, ultimately its awareness of being mindful of domestic peace andimpartiality.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

The formal court structure in England and Wales is outdated andrequires reform