The British Criminal Court System

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

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.

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

All magistrates begin their magisterial career in the adult court where they deal with crimes which can have the most widespread impact on communities; for example, anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related incidents. Magistrates’ courts are also the first stage in dealing with more serious crimes such as rape and murder, which are then referred on to the Crown Court.

This essay will argue that the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales doesn’t provide justice for all. In particular, the institutionally racist nature of the police and courts towards Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups (BAME) will be addressed. The ‘Lammy Review’ has been instrumental in outlining the disproportionate representation of BAME groups within the CJS. In a letter addressed to the Prime minister, David Lammy reports the findings from his review. 51% of UK-born individuals from BAME backgrounds believe that the CJS discriminates against certain groups and individuals (Lammy,2016). In comparison, only 35% of the white population born in the UK believe the same statement (Lammy, 2016). Thus, choosing to focus on the

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.

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.

Magistrates pass the most serious crimes (e.g. murder, rape and robbery) to the Crown Court. Magistrates decide if the defendant should be:

The basic division in the structure of criminal courts is between the lower criminal courts – the local courts, Children’s court and Coroner’s court – and the higher criminal courts – the District Court and the Supreme Court. In observing proceedings at the Local, District and Supreme Courts over a period of three days a number of aspects of the criminal justice system were made apparent. The administration, processes and practices of the criminal trial are extremely varied dependent upon the level of criminal court being observed. The distinctions between the workings of the two courts revealed a number of the differences between summary proceedings and trial upon indictment. The cases observed served to

Is our NSW court system effective? It is if you have money. Is it something that we can just adhere to with out ever allowing it to adapt and evolve to meet societies needs? Absolutely not. Just like humanity, the NSW court system contains protruding faults that are made apparent with further scrutiny. The court system is something that requires our constant attention and support to improve and advance. In order for the court system to attain eligibility it relies heavily on 4 fundamental components; affordability, simplicity, fairness and accessibility. For countless Australians our legal system is lacking on all these fronts.

The Criminal Justice System, a system the British government set up to deal with the treatment of law-breakers, has three main goals to achieve social order, these are, (1) enforcing criminal law, (2) maintaining law and order in the society, and (3) helping victims. This may seem to be a well thought of system, but like any other organisation, there are flaws, and one of the major flaws is discrimination, and the bias that stems from discrimination.

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.

<br>Another common name for the Magistrates' Court is "the police court". This name was given to this particular court due to the fact that a majority of cases brought before this court involve the police having made an investigation of some kind and laying a charge. The prosecutor in these cases is usually a policeman.

Magistrates ' Courts tend to be less intimidating and easier to understand, influenced by the use of lay people,

Question Number or Title: It has been consistently argued that the judiciary in England and Wales is not reflective of society. Critically consider the explanations for the lack of diversity within the judiciary and the extent to which government legislation and initiatives have tried to increase diversity within the judiciary?