The English legal system refers to the system of law that has developed in England from approximately 1066 (the Middle Ages) to the present . The body of English law includes legislation, common law, and a plethora of other legal norms established by Parliament, the Crown and the judiciary. English law is one of the major European legal systems (the other one being Roman law) and has spread to foreign nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which also happen to be former English colonies. Almost every facet of the law of the United States was derived from it during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries , a testament to the influence of English law.
There are many components of the English legal system, which is embodied in the common law of today. A unique feature of English law is that it is based on judicial precedents, whereby the outcome of a particular case becomes legally binding for future cases. It can also be classified into two components, public and private law, the former comprising of civil and criminal law, while the latter is comprised of
…show more content…
When one thinks of separation of powers, one would imagine the separation of powers with regards to the main bodies of Parliament, those being the legislation, executive and judiciary. However, the separation of powers in this context is that within the judiciary, between the judges and the jury. As seen in both Bushell’s Case and McKenna, the jury is independent from the judges. The jury represents the voice of the people, hence their decisions are taken to reflect what the ordinary person would feel and how he would react to the evidence laid down before him. It is unlawful if the judges attempt to take that privilege away from a juror, and interference from a judge could be seen as bias towards a certain party. Therefore, it is crucial that both the judges and the jury act intra vires while in
Legislation and the Common law are not separate and independent sources of law. They exist in a symbiotic relationship. Symbiotic relationship refers to the two different sources of legal norms that provide the sum of rules establish system as a whole. (Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512, 532 [31])
Separation of powers means what it says. Power id distributed among the three branches of government: the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. In Document B of the DBQ Packet, James Madison quotes, “’the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands… may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny…. (L)iberty requires that the three great departments should be separate and distinct.’” In other words, if one person or group owns too much power in a government, then they are considered a tyrant, whether the person (or group) who gained the power was elected into power, born into it, or declared themselves ruler. If the government was not divided into three branches and was only a single department, then too much power would be granted to that government, defying Madison’s ideals of a tyranny-free country. With the government split into different departments, each branch owns its own set of powers. The legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch administers the laws, and the judicial branch interprets laws. Separation of powers guards against tyranny because it helps prevent the development of a branch of government that may ratify, carry out, and portray laws as they wish. Power is distributed among branches ensuring that all offices play a role in the United States’
The system of crime and law enforcement had hardly changed in Britain since the medieval times. Justices of the Peace or JPs were appointed by the Crown since 1361. Before the night watchmen and parish constables were introduced a primitive police force was introduced and the JPs were assisted by constables who only worked part time and were very unreliable as the pay was really bad. The early stages of the force consisted of a night watchmen and parish constables, who were prior to the creation of the main police force. Watchmen were groups of men, usually authorised by a state, government, or society, to deter criminal activity and provide law enforcement. Constables were required to apprehend anyone accused of a felony and bring criminals to a justice of the peace. They also had a general responsibility to keep the peace. There was no expectation that they would investigate and prosecute crimes because of limited responsibility and training. Night watchmen patrolled the streets between 9 or 10pm until sunrise and were expected to examine all suspicious characters. In the City of London, the City Marshall and the Beadles (Parish wardens) conducted daytime patrols. Similar to the night watchmen, primary responsibilities were to patrol and deter, drunkenness, beggars, vagrants and prostitutes and to act as a deterrent against more serious offences. Over the course of this period, the arrangements by which men served as constables and watchmen changed significantly, to incorporate how felons were detected and apprehended.
There are certain categories of legal tradition that differentiate by country or time. These legal traditions are shared by a certain groups of individuals or whole systems in and of themselves. In other words, you have to understand the legal tradition, and which legal system it is affiliated with, to understand the whole picture of how disputes and conflicts are handled. I think in our modern times, it would be challenging to find one legal system that is without influence from other legal systems (Different Legal Traditions, 2012). Legal traditions tend to incorporate different elements from other cultures and legal systems. Most legal traditions have derived from a common origins, similar institutions, and shared concepts from regarding
The criminal justice system has been evolving since the first colonists came to America. At first, the colonists used a criminal justice system that mirrored those in England, France, and Holland. Slowly the French and Dutch influences faded away leaving what was considered the English common law system. The common law system was nothing more than a set of rules used to solve problems within the communities. This system was not based on laws or codes, but simply that of previous decisions handed down by judges. Although rudimentary, this common law system did make the distinction between misdemeanors and the more serious crimes known as felonies.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
... a very strong separation between Executive and Legislature, and the Judiciary – Members of Parliament and Government ministers cannot sit in the Judiciary and interpret the law. There is not, however, such a strict separation between the Executive and the Legislature, as the Executive sits in Parliament as well.
•At the beginning of the 19th century there were 3 types of law in England:
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on a foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
The meaning of English Legal System is stated out by Cownie and Bradley in the English Legal System book . There are many sources that build up the English Law as it is today. The main sources of English Law consist of Common Law, parliamentary legislation and delegated legislation. As stated in Gary Slapper & David Kelly’s English Legal System book , there are many different interpretations of the phrase ‘source of law’ where in this book the law is made up of three main sources; where in Martin Hunt’s “A” Level Law , though there are different sources that make up the English law, these sources are differentiated in two main categories with various minor sources.
In the mouth of a British constitutional lawyer, the term the rule of law seems to mean primarily a corpus of basic principles and values, which together lend some stability and coherence to the legal order.
Law is a tool in society as it helps to maintain social control, promoting social justice. The way law functions in society and its social institution provide a mechanism for solutions. There are many different theories of the function of law in relation to society in considering the insight they bring to different socio-legal and criminological problems. In the discussion of law’s role in social theory, Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich share similar beliefs in the jurisprudence of society. They focused their work on the experience of individuals in establishing meaning in their legal relations with others based on the question of what it means to be a participant in law. Jürgen Habermas presents a relationship between law and morality. From a certain standpoint, law is a key steering mechanism in society as it plays an educational role in promoting conducts, a mean of communication and it