The Current Civil Justice System Of England And Wales Essay

Within the criminal justice system discuss the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in achieving justice.

The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

“A first class court system and a first class legal profession are of no avail to a person who cannot afford to access them.” Sir Anthony Mason, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

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

Concepts of ‘accessing’ and ‘achieving’ justice and their definitions are often debated and contested. Achieving and accessing justice may be explained through a segregation of groups. For users of the justice system, access refers to the capacity to effectively utilise the justice system, whereas for the general public access to justice refers to the capacity to obtain appropriate information to evaluate the performance of the legal system and ways in which it operates on their behalf (Martin, 2014). These definitions reveal that both users of the courts and the general public should be very much aware of barriers to its access,

Merit –compare and contrast the role of judges ,lawyers and lay people within the English courts.

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

According to Justice John Molloy who “began practicing law in 1946, justice was much simpler” during that time and “the judicial system was straightforward and efficient” (Molloy 12). The judges focused on the laws outlined by the

For this criteria I will be producing a written evaluation of the effectiveness of magistrates and juries in the administration of justice in the English legal system.

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 legitimacy of the criminal justice system is based largely upon both its effectiveness and its fairness. Its effectiveness is judged by its ability to investigate and detect crime, identify offenders and mete out the appropriate sanctions to those who have been convicted of offences. Its fairness is judged by its thoroughness and the efforts it makes to redress the resource imbalance between the accused and the state at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages. The system does this by providing evidentiary protection and effective legal representation at all points.

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?

“It’s a general problem not specific to the law of the United Kingdom a criminal justice system characterized by an emphasis on crime control rather than due process will inevitably produce miscarriage of justice.”