Outline and Describe the Structure and Jurisdiction of the Scottish Criminal and Civil Courts. Give Examples of the Types of Cases These Courts Will Hear and Indicate Which Scottish Legal Personnel You Would Expect to Find There.

The Victorian Court System was made up of many different parts, including the three different courts, the different juries, and the lawyers. There were three different courts: the Petty Court, the Assize Court and the King’s/Queen’s Bench. Each of the three courts functioned to serve a different purpose, and worked together to hold all of the trials. There were also different court sessions, which included Petty Sessions, Quarter Sessions, Borough Sessions, and City Councils, all of which served different purposes. In addition to the courts and court sessions, there were also the two different juries and the different lawyers. All of these components of the court were very important to the trials, and made the court what we know it as today.

* In the criminal courts a judge and sometimes a jury hears a witnesses testimony and other evidence and decide cases by applying relevant law to the relevant facts. People who are not satisfied with a trial court decision appeal cases to judges in the appellate courts.

The courts are the formal courts of law that have been established over many years. Their purpose is to uphold the law of the land as dictated by statute and impose this law over those who appear to be in contradiction of these laws. A traditional court proceeding involves to opposing parties who present the facts of the case to the court and the presiding judge or sheriff rules in favour of one of the parties. Their

Fundamental to the Scottish legal system is discovering the truth. In Scotland, a defendant has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty . The burden of proof lies with the Crown, who must prove their case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. From the very beginning of the criminal process - the arrests of the suspect - until the very end - the conviction of the defendant - the state are empowered with many rights, such as the power to detain , which assist them in reaching the truth. Although the state are provided with these rights, there are limitations placed on them in the form of the rights of the defendant, such as the right to remain silent or the right to defend themself either in person or through legal

The next step in the ladder is the District Court; like the Local Court, it has both Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction, however it hears most indictable offences in jury trials. The Supreme Courts Trial Division has original civil and criminal jurisdiction, but it only hears the most serious of criminal cases (like murder or terrorism). Additionally, its’ Court of Appeal hears direct appeals from the District Court and Supreme Court trial division – it usually only hears appeals regarding questions of law and not fact.

The civil courts deal with standard lawsuits between people over torts contracts family law issues, juvenile issues, and issues involving rights of the people. They handle probate cases and guardianships. The civil courts deal with rules and regulations.

“The judicial system of the United States is unique in so far as it is actually made up of two different court systems, the Federal Court System and the State Court System”. ( United States Courts).

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.

<br>Towards the mid section of the Australian Court Hierarchy System, lies the County of District Court. The cases that this court's jurisdiction covers is very similar to those of the Supreme Court. This particular court hear appeals from the lower courts and a great majority of criminal hearings are heard in these courts. The judges appointed to hear the cases of this court are appointed by the State Parliament. The Country Court's jurisdiction is empowered to hear civil disputes in which one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or less is claimed for personal damages.

Writers, lawyers in the 17th and 18th centuries wrote books setting out principles on which Scots law is based, many based on roman Law, lawyers apply the principles to situations, e.g. Stair, Bell, Erskine.

Most people don’t know about the three major components of the criminal justice system, but, in this paper the reader will know what they are. The reader will also read about how the three components interrelate to one another, and also how the conflict one another. The

The highest rank court is the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. Below this, yet the highest and most powerful ranked in the United Kingdom, is the House of Lords also recognised as the Supreme Courts since 2009. The decisions of this court are binding on all other courts lower in the hierarchy. Prior to 1966 the House of Lords were too bound by their own decisions to help ensure certainty unless it was seen to be made ‘per incurium’ (by error). This meant the House of Lords could not overrule a previous decision even if it was socially outdated. This was illustrated in London Tramways v London CC where it was held certainty of the law was more important than individual hardship . However, the introduction of the Practice Statement 1966 gave the House of Lords flexibility to amend a law if it is ‘right to do so’. In the appeal documents a material change of circumstances usually has to be shown. The Practice Statement (HL: Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 W.L.R.1234, per Lord Gardiner, argued for and against a rigid system of binding precedent and highlighted that even though certainty is of importance within the making of Laws, to follow past precedents blindly will lead to injustice. The House of Lords freed itself from a self-imposed restraint by exercising its inherent jurisdiction as a court to change its own practice.

The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To

The lower courts are bound by the House of Lords so they have to apply