Privy Council vs . Caribbean Court of Justice

The court system is divided into a three level hierarchy. The first level is superior/family court, the second is The Provincial Court, and the third is The Supreme Court of Canada. This hierarchy makes a system of appeals and if the losing part in a lower level feels that the judge or jury did not look at all the evidence, or they feel they were unjustly tried they have the right to appeal to higher courts. Appeals make the court system more unprejudiced and fair, which help those who may have been wronged or unfairly represented have another trial with a new panel of judges or jurors. A person can have up to thirteen judges looking over their case. Together, they can all guarantee that there will be a correct decision and whatever that decision is will be fair. Appeals are important and favourable to have, especially if there truly was a mistake and it will be fixed. Of course, one must have concrete evidence that there was an error. This provides confidence for Canadian citizens that The Canadian Independent Justice System is not a threat to

In England their form of government is called the Parliamentary Monarchy and the Queen Elizabeth II is the monarch for England. Crown is another name for monarch. “It serves as the head of the judiciary, commander in chief of the armed forces, supreme governor of the Church of England, and Church of Scotland, and summons and dismisses Parliament and ministers of the cabinet” (Meadows, 2001). With advice from the prime minister, the crown appoints, diplomats, military officials, judges, and archbishops and gives awards and honors. Justices of the peace known as local magistrates hear petty offenses. Local magistrates are unpaid members of the community who have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor. “Serious offenses are sent ot a Crown Court and jury of local citizens will make convictions and sentences which will be taken to the Court of Appeals for the Criminal Divisions with the final court appeals being the House of Lords” (Meadows, 2001).

The State Council is represented by the premier who is “Head of the government” CIA, vice-premiers, State councilors, ministers in charge of ministries and commissions, the auditor-general and the secretary-general.

I did go two different courts. Southwark Crown Court which was opened in 1983 is one of those. It contains 15 courts, making it the fourth biggest court in the nation and is outlined as a genuine extortion focus. In England and Wales the crown courts additionally go about as a court of first occasion for serious criminal offences. A case, contingent upon the seriousness can take many deferent routs through the structure of the legal framework. The severe the crime, the higher the court that the trial does settled. My court visit on eighteenth and nineteenth of December 2014 was truly fundamental, keeping in mind the end goal to accomplish a more prominent useful understanding of the different angles and structural type of legitimate framework. A percentage of the procedures that they take after are indeed regulations of Act of Parliament, the lion 's share of which are a piece of the Court Procedures Act 2004.

The Commonwealth is a voluntary intergovernmental association between many different states that are mostly ruled by the Britain

In 2013 the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) struck down the Country’s existing prostitution laws because they violated Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereafter referred to as The Charter) as they infringed in a sex workers right to life, liberty and security, specifically because while the act of being a sex worker was not illegal, many of the aspects around it were which was deemed unjust (Perrin, 2014: 6-7). This case is important not only because of the way it effects sex workers, but because when the law was sent back to parliament to be revised the resulting law ended up being far different than the original claimants desires. This case demonstrates one of the ways Parliament and the SCC interact with each other as a

The Crown Court will encompass cases from the Magistrates’ Courts, which is the lowermost court that deals with the majority of criminal cases (Terrill, 2012, p. 57). As stated above, passing a UK law has a much more detailed process. If the case is appealed then it will move up to the High Court to be heard and then to the Court of Appeal. Here the two Houses of Parliament named House of Lords and House of Commons are filled with people who will customarily oversee the case. The final appeal is heard at the House of Lords, which is remarkably similar to the Senate in the United States. The House of Lords poses as an unelected critic on decisions made by the House of Commons, yet they both must agree to pass a bill into law. The U.S. elects a President as the head of state and consecutively the UK appoints a Queen or King as the official monarch. However, even though the current Queen of England may have the final approval over a decree, the Prime Minister and the two Houses carry the real power. The verdicts made within the courts are decisively binding due to the precedents of the cases. Their doctrine is composed of an oppositional system where a magistrate and the occasional jury listen to the prosecution while defense lawyers (barristers) deliver their arguments. Magistrates hear all kinds of cases, yet they are merely elected members of

The lower courts of the country follow the rulings and decisions of the higher courts. Canada's supreme Court has the authority to overrule all lower Canadian courts. When there is an issue that there is little existing Canadian decisions they will often look at rulings made by the English of American courts. There is a long standing correlation between Canadian and English law, where the examples of the English House of Appeals and House of Lords are followed. Since there is this history, decisions by the House of Lords will stand in Canada until overturned by the Canadian Supreme Court.

the House of Lords. It is in the House of Lords they would have most

this essay I will attempt to examine and analyse the effectiveness of international courts and

To support my argument, I will first discuss the evolution of international criminal justice and the ICC. Then I will address my three subsidiary arguments. First, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it increases accountability of human rights violators. Secondly, I will argue that the existence and use of the court increases disapproval and deterrence which protects human rights making the ICC effective. Third, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it allows for a universal standard of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour as well as transcends and empowers national jurisdictions. Finally, I will address the counter argument and conclude.

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

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

     Over the past few years, the International Criminal Court (ICC or “the Court”) has been igniting controversy the world over. As more countries rallied behind it, more objections have been made, particularly from Americans, regarding what many view as fundamental flaws. I have chosen two papers to compare and contrast the different viewpoints taken by the authors when reflecting upon America’s involvement with the ICC. One calls for total rejection of the ICC, the other weighs the risks and benefits and calls for revision but acceptance.

The ongoing debate about the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), and whether or not it would benefit the people of the Caribbean or should be the final appellant court continues. The CCJ was established in 2001 and is based in Trinidad and Tobago. The objective of the CCJ was to provide for the Caribbean community an accessible, fair, efficient, innovative and impartial justice system built on jurisprudence reflective of our history, values and traditions while maintaining an inspirational, independent institution worthy of emulation by the courts of the region and the trust and confidence of its people.