Domestic Courts

5 Key excerpts on "Domestic Courts"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government

  Purpose, Process, and People

  • Britannica Educational Publishing, Brian Duignan(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Britannica Educational Publishing

    (Publisher)

  Common law, also called Anglo-American law, is the body of customary law, based upon judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases, that has been administered by the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From it has evolved the type of legal system now found also in the United States and in most of the member states of the Commonwealth (formerly the British Commonwealth of Nations). In this sense common law, practiced throughout the United States (except in Louisiana, which utilizes civil law) is also now widespread in continental Europe and elsewhere. In civil-law systems, judges apply principles embodied in statutes, or law codes, rather than relying on precedents established in earlier cases. Used in another sense, the term “civil law” refers to the law that governs the private relations between individuals or businesses, as distinguished from the law that applies to criminal matters.

  FUNCTIONS OF COURTS

  KEEPING THE PEACE

  The primary function of any court system—to help keep domestic peace—is so obvious that it is rarely considered or mentioned. If there were no institution that was accepted by the citizens of a society as an impartial and authoritative judge of whether a person had committed a crime and, if so, what type of punishment should be meted out, vigilantes offended by the person’s conduct might well take the law into their own hands and proceed to punish the alleged miscreant according to their uncontrolled discretion. If no agency were empowered to decide private disputes impartially and authoritatively, people would have to settle their disputes by themselves, with power rather than legitimate authority likely being the basis of such decisions. Such a system might easily degenerate into anarchy. Not even a primitive society could survive under such conditions. Thus, in this most basic sense, courts constitute an essential element of society’s machinery for keeping peace.

  DECIDING DISPUTES

  In the course of helping to keep the peace, courts are called upon to decide controversies. If, in a criminal case, the defendant (one charged with a crime) denies committing the acts charged against him, the court must choose between his version of the facts and that presented by the prosecution. If the defendant asserts that his actions did not constitute criminal behaviour, the court (often aided by a jury) must decide whether his view of the law and facts or the prosecution’s is correct. In a civil case, if the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s account of what happened between them—for example, whether they entered into a certain contract or agreement—or if he disputes the plaintiff’s view of the legal significance of whatever occurred—for example, whether the agreement was legally binding—the court again must choose between the contentions of the parties. The issues presented to, and decided by, the court may be either factual, legal, or both.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Essential Law for Social Workers

  • Robert Madden(Author)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Columbia University Press

    (Publisher)

  State and federal courts are structured in similar ways, resulting in a logical system for managing various types of litigation. Sometimes social workers and other professionals react too strongly to the decision in a single court case (Madden 1998). The case may stand out as a significant legal ruling, but it may not reflect an accurate legal rule. It is important to understand the relationship between the role of the particular court that decided the case and the degree to which the decision has the power to influence subsequent cases. The identity of the court tells a great deal about whether the ruling is a final one and whether it has anything to say directly about the law in a particular jurisdiction.

  STATE COURT SYSTEMS

  The names of the courts in each state vary, but the basic three-level design is the common model for states. States generally have two levels of trial court. The first, historically called courts of limited jurisdiction, hear civil cases in which the damage amount is small, and they hear simple criminal cases, usually involving misdemeanors. Sometimes these courts are referred to as justice courts because originally a justice of the peace presided over them. In cities these courts are called municipal courts, and the judges may be referred to as magistrates (Louisell, Hazard, and Tait 1983).

  The second type of state trial court is a court of general jurisdiction. The states have various names for these courts such as Superior Court (California), Supreme Court (New York), and circuit, county, and district courts. One judge usually hears trials in these courts. Increasingly, the states are establishing specialized trial courts to handle cases related to particular issues or populations, such as family courts, juvenile courts, and recently, in recognition of the unique knowledge base required by complex social issues, the development of drug courts, domestic violence courts, and housing courts, among others.

  A plaintiff or a defendant may appeal the decision of a trial court. The appellate court reviews issues of law, such as whether the trial court properly applied a statute or correctly interpreted the common law, whether the trial judge made any errors in allowing consideration of evidence, and whether the jury was properly instructed as to the law. Again, the names and exact structure of the appellate division vary by state, but three-judge panels often hear the appeal.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Law Made Simple

  • David Barker(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 3

  The courts today

       

  Key points

  ● the role of the Supreme Court

  ● differences between civil and criminal jurisdiction

  ● advantages and disadvantages of administrative tribunals

  ● arbitration and forms of alternative dispute resolution

  ● laypersons in the courts

  3.1 Civil courts

  3.1.1 The House of Lords and the Supreme Court

  The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which came into effect on the 3 April 2006 changed the future role of the Lord Chancellor, the operation of a final United Kingdom court of appeal and the appointment of the judiciary.

  In accordance with Part 3 of the Act, in October 2009, the United Kingdom Supreme Court replaced the former system of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. The court is housed in the former Middlesex Guildhall in Parliament Square, Westminster. Part 3 of the Act also provides for the appointment of Judges and Justices of the Supreme Court. The first members of the Supreme Court were the twelve persons who, immediately before s. 23 of the Act came into effect, were the current Law Lords, with the Lord Chief Justice taking on the additional title of the President of the Supreme Court.

  The Supreme Court stands at the apex of the judicial system, and is the final court of appeal in civil and criminal matters, unless a matter of European Union Law, which can be appealed to the European Court of Justice.

  As the official website of the Supreme Court States:

  Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the State, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution. The Supreme Court was established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

  Jurisdiction

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminology: A Complete Introduction: Teach Yourself

  • Peter Joyce, Wendy Laverick(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Teach Yourself

    (Publisher)

  In many states, the next-level courts are intermediate appellate courts. These hear appeals based on procedural matters or alleged errors of fact made by the lower-tier court (although the prosecution cannot appeal against a not guilty verdict). Cases are heard by a panel of two or three judges.

  The highest court in each state is often termed a supreme court. It acts as an appellate court for appeals against decisions reached by state circuit courts and (in states that have them) state intermediate appellate courts that are based upon an alleged error of law. Cases are heard by a panel of judges whose number varies from three to nine.

  Courts with international jurisdiction

  Key idea

  Individual nation states may also be subject to the operation of courts that have international jurisdiction. In Europe, these include the European Court of Human Rights.

  The courts which function within one country are referred to as Domestic Courts . In addition to these, there are courts that exercise jurisdiction over a number of countries. We will consider the operations of two of these courts that affect the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

  THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ)/THE COURT OF JUSTICE

  This court was established in 1952, and its main purpose is to ensure that European Union (EU) law is adhered to within member countries. Disputes between states, between the EU and member states, between individuals and the EU, or between the institutions of the EU are all referred to this court. It has the power to declare unlawful any national law that contravenes EU law and also has the power to fine companies in breach of this legislation. The 2009 Treaty of Lisbon renamed the ECJ the Court of Justice. The extent to which this court will continue to exercise jurisdiction in the UK following its withdrawal from the EU (Brexit) is currently uncertain.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Legal Translation Explained

  • Enrique Alcaraz, Brian Hughes, Anthony Pym(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  It is also worth stressing that the judges are not chosen from the people who happen to be members of the House of Lords, but rather are distinguished career judges promoted to the House in order to be members of the very select group of senior judges appointed members of the ‘Judicial Committee of the House of Lords’. They are the equivalent of the constitutional court of those countries that have a written constitution (which appears to mean every parliamentary democracy except the United Kingdom) and combine these functions with those of supreme court judges of appeal elsewhere. They are popularly known as the ‘Law Lords’, but translations of this expression which could suggest that they are ‘lords’ who happen to be judges or lawyers should be resisted as inaccurate. As we have said, it is the other way round.

  The House of Lords exclusively hears appeals on matters of law, always with leave and solely in answer to certified questions concerning matters of law of general public importance. Until the 1960s the House’s decisions were binding on the House itself and on all inferior courts, and so the only way it could depart from (desvincularse de, s’éloigner de, abweichen von) its own precedents was by ‘distinguishing’ cases deemed to have been wrongly or dubiously decided. Nowadays, after an uncomfortable precedent has been distinguished by several differently formed committees, it can be disapproved by a later committee considering a case in which one of the parties has referred it to the disputed judgement.

  4.   The English Criminal Courts

  The major distinction between Anglo-American criminal law and that of the ‘civil-law’ or ‘Roman-law’ countries is that the former is generally recognized as being adversarial rather than inquisitorial. The Crown (or the State, or the People) takes the place of the plaintiff, rather than an ‘examining magistrate’ (juez instructor, juge d’instruction, Untersuchungsrichter) taking the lead in testing the evidence (pruebas, preuves, Beweismaterial) or pressing charges against an accused person. It is true that in England the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in Scotland the Procurator-Fiscal and in the US the District Attorney (DA) make a decision like that of the Continental Ministerio Fiscal, Parquet or Staatsanwaltschaft as to whether an accused person should stand trial. It is also true that, in England, all criminal prosecution must begin with a brief hearing at the magistrates’ court (approx. juzgado de guardia, tribunal de police, erstinstanzliches Gericht für Strafsachen niederer Ordnung

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book