DOCSLIB.ORG

The Future of the United Kingdom's Highest Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Future of the United Kingdom's Highest Courts The Future of the United Kingdom's Highest Courts Andrew Le Sueur Barber Professor of Jurisprudence, The University of Birmingham Richard Cornes Lecturer in Public Law, University of Essex Funded by the ISBN: 1 903903 03 3 Published by The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy UCL (University College London) 29/30 Tavistock Square London WClH 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax: 020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uWconstirution-unid O Andrew Le Sueur and Richard Cornes, 2001 This report is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any fonn of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First published June 2001 Contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................................6 The UK top courts project ................................................................................................................6 Other publications from the project ............................................................................................... 6 Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................7 A note on terminology .....................................................................................................................7 Responses are welcomed .................................................................................................................7 1Introduction .......................................................................................................................................8 1. 1 Scope and purpose of the report ............................................................................................8 1.2 Why consider the issue now?.................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Top courts' outputs ..................................................................................................................9 1.4 Constitutional 'fit' ...................................................................................................................11 1.5 National perspectives ...........................................................................................................12 1.6 Are there lessons from other legal systems? .......................................................................14 1.7 Structure of the report ............................................................................................................14 2 Portraits of the UK's top level courts .......................................................................................... 16 2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................16 2.2 House of Lords ........................................................................................................................16 2.3 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council .............................................................................21 2.4 Relationship between Appellate and Judicial Committees ..............................................25 2.5 The character of the Committees .........................................................................................26 3 Core institutionai qualities of top IeveI courts ........................................................................ 28 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 28 3.2 Institutional autonomy ..........................................................................................................29 3.3 Transparency ...........................................................................................................................33 3.4 Acco~mtability......................................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Efficiency.................................................................................................................................. 38 4 Functions of the UK's top courts .............................................................................................. 39 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 39 4.2 Better quality adjudication .................................................................................................... 39 4.3 Determining important cases ................................................................................................40 4.4 Error correction ....................................................................................................................... 40 4.5 Constitutional protection ....................................................................................................... 41 4.6 System management .............................................................................................................. 43 4.7 Innovation ...............................................................................................................................44 4.8 Other functions ....................................................................................................................... 45 5 Political context of reform ........................................................................................................... 46 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................46 5.2 Missed opportunities for reform ...................................................................................... 46 5.3 Political disincentives to reform ........................................................................................... 49 5.4 Future political 'fuels' for change .........................................................................................51 5.5 What style of change? ............................................................................................................56 6 The machinery of change .............................................................................................................59 6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................59 6.2 The ambitions of reform ........................................................................................................59 6.3 Machinery for developing policy ......................................................................................... 60 6.4 Machinery for implementing change ...................................................................................63 7 Options for major structural change and the status quo......................................................... 65 7.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................65 7.2 Why these models? .................................................................................................................66 7.3 The Scottish questions and structural change ....................................................................66 7.4 The court's premises and location ........................................................................................70 7.5 Are we predisposed to structural change? ..................................................................... 70 7.6 Is the status quo a viable structural option? .......................................................................71 8 Structural change -- a UK supreme court .................................................................................. 74 8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................74 8.2 The UK supreme court's jurisdiction ...................................................................................74 8.3 The status of the supreme court ...........................................................................................76 8.4 Judges of the supreme court .................................................................................................76 8.5 Structural advantages of a new supreme court .................................................................76 8.6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................78 ' 9 Structural change .a constitutional court 'plus' ...................................................................... 79 9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................79 9.2 Recent political background .................................................................................................. 79 9.3 The constitutionai court's formal jurisdiction ....................................................................85 9.4 The benefits of this model .....................................................................................................86
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petition and Summons Procedure
    Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report Petition and Summons Procedure Discussion paper for the Rules Rewrite Committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council Dr. Stephen Thomson 14th December 2016 1 Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report Discussion Paper on Petition and Summons Procedure Structure of Paper 1. Research specification 3 2. Historical, legal and principled basis for the distinction 4 2.1 Overview 4 2.2 Determination of whether to commence process by petition or summons 10 2.3 Testing the distinction between the petition and summons 14 a. Petition is usually an ex parte form of originating non-contentious or non-adversarial process 15 b. Petition involves the discretionary exercise of statutory or common law powers as distinct from the application of rules of law 18 3. Difficulties caused by the distinction in present practice 28 4. Difficulties likely to be presented by the removal of the distinction 32 4.1 Risk of replacing one two-tier process with another 32 4.2 Ensuring the continued possibility of ex parte applications 36 4.3 Retaining flexibility/brevity in appropriate cases 36 4.4 Retaining the relative speed and cheapness of abbreviated/expedited process 38 5. Other jurisdictions 39 5.1 England and Wales 39 5.2 Australia 41 a. New South Wales 41 b. Victoria 43 5.3 New Zealand 44 5.4 Canada 47 a. Ontario 47 b. British Columbia 49 c. Alberta 50 6. Conclusion 51 2 Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report 1. Research Specification I have been asked by the Rules Rewrite Committee (the “Committee”) of the Scottish Civil Justice Council (the “SCJC”), to provide historical and principled academic analysis in relation to questions arising from the proposal to merge petition and summons procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Development of the Saint Lucia Civil Code N
    Document generated on 10/01/2021 11:30 p.m. Revue générale de droit THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAINT LUCIA CIVIL CODE N. J. O. Liverpool Volume 14, Number 2, 1983 Article abstract The Civil Code of St. Lucia was copied almost verbatim from the Québec Civil URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1059340ar Code and promulgated in the island in 1879, with minor influences from the DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1059340ar Civil Code of Louisiana. It has constantly marvelled both West Indians and visitors to the region alike, See table of contents that of all the former British Caribbean territories which were subjected to the vicissitudes of the armed struggles in the region between the Metropolitan powers resulting infrequent changes is sovereignty from one power to the Publisher(s) other, only St. Lucia, after seventy-six years of uninterrupted British rule since its last cession by the French, managed to introduce a Civil Code which in effect Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa was in direct conflict in most respects with the laws obtaining in its parent country. ISSN This is an attempt to examine the forces which were constantly at work in 0035-3086 (print) order to achieve this end, and the resoluteness of their efforts. 2292-2512 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Liverpool, N. J. O. (1983). THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAINT LUCIA CIVIL CODE. Revue générale de droit, 14(2), 373–407. https://doi.org/10.7202/1059340ar Droits d'auteur © Faculté de droit, Section de droit civil, Université d'Ottawa, This document is protected by copyright law.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report
    The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report May 2017 Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Background to the rules rewrite project.............................................................................. 3 The Acts ........................................................................................................................ 3 The Rules Rewrite Working Group ................................................................................. 4 The Rules Rewrite Drafting Team and implementation of the 2014 Act .......................... 5 The Rules Rewrite Project ................................................................................................. 6 The scope of the project ................................................................................................. 6 Matters out with the scope of the project ........................................................................ 8 Purpose of this report ........................................................................................................ 9 Discussion papers .......................................................................................................... 9 Engagement with the public and the professions ......................................................... 10 Chapter 2. A statement of principle .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Memorandum to The
    EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE WELSH LANGUAGE (GAMBLING AND LICENSING FORMS) REGULATIONS 2010 2010 No. 2440 1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“the Department”) and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty. 2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1 These Regulations prescribe the Welsh, and in some cases bilingual, versions of the forms which may be accepted by the Welsh licensing authorities in place of the forms prescribed by secondary legislation made under the Gambling Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”) and Licensing Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”). These Regulations prescribe Welsh or bilingual forms for use under the 2005 Act for the first time. These Regulations also prescribe Welsh or bilingual forms for use under the 2003 Act which were originally prescribed in an earlier instrument (which is revoked by these Regulations) and three forms which have come into existence since relevant licensing forms were prescribed in the Welsh language in that earlier instrument. 2.2 The Department entered into a Welsh language scheme on 8 June 2007 and this includes a commitment to prescribe forms (if required for use by the Welsh public) in Welsh or bilingual format. 3. Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 3.1 These Regulations revoke the Licensing Act 2003 (Welsh Language Forms) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/805), and prescribe the Welsh or bilingual forms to which that Order related. The Committee reported the Order for defective drafting in its Nineteenth Report for the 2006/2007 Session, on the basis that this instrument should instead have been made in the form of regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED]
    United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED] CONTENTS Section PART 1 THE UNCRC REQUIREMENTS Meaning of “the UNCRC requirements” and related expressions 1 Meaning of “the UNCRC requirements” and related expressions 2 Meaning of references to States Parties and related expressions in the UNCRC requirements 3 Power to modify the schedule Interpretation of the UNCRC requirements 4 Interpretation of the UNCRC requirements 5 Duty to modify section 4 on ratification of the third optional protocol to the Convention PART 2 DUTIES ON PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Acts of public authorities to be compatible with the UNCRC requirements 6 Acts of public authorities to be compatible with the UNCRC requirements Remedies for unlawful acts 7 Proceedings for unlawful acts 8 Judicial remedies 8A Child’s view on effectiveness of reliefs etc. 9 Restriction on proceedings in respect of judicial acts Power for Commissioner to bring or intervene in proceedings 10 Power for Commissioner to bring or intervene in proceedings Power for Scottish Commission for Human Rights to bring or intervene in proceedings 10A Power for Scottish Commission for Human Rights to bring or intervene in proceedings Guidance on this Part 10B Guidance on this Part SP Bill 80B Session 5 (2021) ii United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill PART 3 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS SCHEME, CHILD RIGHTS AND WELLBEING IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTING DUTIES Children’s Rights Scheme 11 Children’s Rights Scheme 12 Procedure for
    [Show full text]
  • PDF the Whole Part
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Court of Session Act 1988, Part I. (See end of Document for details) Court of Session Act 1988 1988 CHAPTER 36 PART I CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT 1 Number of judges of Court. (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) [F1, (3A)] and (4) below, the maximum number of judges of the Court of Session (hereinafter in this Act referred to as “the Court”) shall be [F235] (2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council from time to time amend subsection (1) above so as to increase or further increase the maximum number of persons who may be appointed as judges of the Court. (3) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before [F3and approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament.] [F4(3A) The Lord President must be consulted before any draft of an Order under this section is laid before the Parliament.] (4) No vacancy arising among the judges of the Court shall be filled unless the Secretary of State F5. .is satisfied that the state of business in the Court requires that the vacancy should be filled. (5) There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund any increase attributable to the provisions of this section in the sums which, under any other enactment, are payable out of that Fund. Subordinate Legislation Made P1 S. 1(2): power exercised (19.12.1991) by S.I. 1991/2884 2 Court of Session Act 1988 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Petition in the Court of Session in Early Modern Scotland John Finlay
    1 The petition in the Court of Session in early modern Scotland John Finlay School of Law, University of Glasgow, Scotland SUMMARY Petitions to Scotland’s central civil court, the Court of Session, contained common features of style despite being presented for a wide range of purposes. As well as being employed in the course of procedure in a number of litigated cases, the petition was used to obtain entry to an office, or in seeking an equitable remedy which might relieve imminent suffering. In many cases they offer detailed narratives about everyday life, commerce, politics and religion which preserve a great deal that may be of value to the legal and social historian. Some petitioners, such as the poor and vulnerable, enjoyed a privileged status entitling them to have their claims heard summarily. A number of petitions, written by lawyers in order to persuade, contain ideas about liberty, justice and reason reflecting the fact that they were addressed to a court of both law and equity. This contribution identifies the features of such petitions, attempts to classify them, and considers their wider historical significance. This article discusses eighteenth-century petitions in the Court of Session, Scotland’s central civil court. The court comprised 15 judges: 14 lords 2 ordinary and a lord president. While individual lords ordinary heard cases at first instance in the Outer House, and dealt with summary bills and evidential matters, the ‘hail [whole] fifteen’ sat collectively in the Inner House of the court to determine points reported to them for decision. They enjoyed an extensive jurisdiction as a court of first instance, and also in review of judgments made in local courts or interlocutors [decrees] made by their own lords ordinary.
    [Show full text]
  • A Diagnostic Study of the Barbados Drug Treatment Courts
    A Diagnostic Study of the Barbados Drug Treatment Courts Organization of American States Findings and Recommendations Secretariat for Multidimensional Security Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission This evaluation (process) was carried out in coordination with the Government of Barbados and under the leadership of the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (ES/CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS), in association with the Center for Court Innovation (CCI). CICAD receives institutional and financial support from the Government of Canada through the Crime Prevention Capacity Development Program (ACCBP), and the CARICOM Secretariat through the 10th EDF program from the European Commission. The contents expressed in this document are presented exclusively for informational purposes and do not necessarily represent the opinion or ocial position of the Organization of American States, its General A Diagnostic Study of the Barbados Drug Treatment Courts Secretariat or its member states. ISBN 978-0-8270-6853-7 A Diagnostic Study of the Barbados Drug Treatment Courts Findings and Recommendations Coordinated by: Written by: With the financial support of: In partnership with: OAS Cataloging-in-Publication Data Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission. Executive Secretariat. A diagnostic study of the Barbados Drug Treatment Courts : findings and recommendations / Produced by the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission and the Center for Court Innovation. v. ; cm (OAS. Official records ; OEA/Ser.L/XIV.6.67) ISBN 978-0-8270-6853-7 1. Drug courts--Barbados. 2. Drug abuse--Treatment--Law and legislation--Barbados. I. Title. II. Center for Court Innovation. III.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 16-136 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE, Petitioner, v. BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED AND BELIZE BANK LIMITED, Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GUYANA SUPPORTING THE GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI BENJAMIN G. SHATZ Counsel of Record MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 [email protected] (310) 312-4000 Counsel for Amicus Curiae The Government of Guyana i TABLE OF CONTENTS BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ..........................1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...........................5 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .................................................7 I. The CCJ Is Vitally Important To The Caribbean Region’s Goals Of Independence And Solidarity .............7 II. The CCJ’s Opinion In This Case Is Of Utmost Importance Because It Addresses Foundational Issues Of Democratic Government .................. 11 CONCLUSION ................................................ 13 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES BCB Holdings Ltd. v. Attorney General of Belize, CCJ Appeal No. CV 7 of 2012 ............... 11–12 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Article V(2)(b) .............................................. 12 1 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE The Government of Guyana submits this brief in support of the Government of Belize’s petition for certiorari.1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Co-operative Republic of Guyana is a sovereign nation on the northern coast of South America, bordering Venezuela, Brazil, Suriname and the Caribbean Sea. Like Belize, Guyana is intimately tied geographically, culturally, historically, linguistically, and politically to the Caribbean region.2 1 Counsel for the Government of Guyana authored this brief in whole and no other person or entity made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
    [Show full text]
  • Concordat Between the Department for Education and The
    POLICY AND STRATEGY Concordat between the Department for Education and the Welsh Government This concordat sets out a framework for co-operation between the Department for Education and the Welsh Government. First published: 16 January 2013 Last updated: 16 January 2013 This document was downloaded from GOV.WALES and may not be the latest version. Go to https://gov.wales/concordat-between-department-education-and-welsh-government-html for the latest version. Get information on copyright. Contents Introduction Specific functions Co-operation Exchange of information Impact assessments Cross border bodies Appointments Finance Access to services Welsh Language Scheme Correspondence Other documents Disputes Review Confidentiality This document was downloaded from GOV.WALES and may not be the latest version. Go to https://gov.wales/concordat-between-department-education-and-welsh-government-html for the latest version. Get information on copyright. Agreement Annex A Annex B Introduction 1. This concordat establishes an agreed framework for co-operation between the parties, the Welsh Government (“WG”) and the UK government’s Department for Education (“DfE”). This includes all matters arising from DfE’s responsibilities which impact directly or indirectly on the functions of the Welsh Ministers and vice versa. Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 confers upon the National Assembly for Wales a broad range of primary law making powers in relation to subjects that are listed under 20 headings and set out in Schedule 7 to that 2006 Act. The National Assembly can legislate by passing Acts of the Assembly in relation to those subjects. The subject areas are areas in which the Welsh Government has executive functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Status of BSL and ISL Is Urgently Needed
    charter4BSL_frontcover_201.pdf 1 15/10/2012 23:12 BDABRITISH DEAF ASSOCIATION Legal Status for BSL and ISL Discussion Paper © British Deaf Association Association Deaf British © British Deaf Association Legal Status for BSL and ISL Report prepared by Dr S.C.E Batterbury Magill, BDA Consultant Association “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart.” Nelson Mandela Deaf British © First Edition © BDA March 2014 Legal Status for BSL and ISL 3 Contents Foreword 6 Acknowledgements 7 Dedication 7 Executive Summary 8 1. Introduction: BSL as a language, Deaf culture and Deaf heritage 14 1.1 Developments in the BDA’s campaign for legal status of BSL 14 1.2 BSL is a Language 16 1.3 Deaf Culture and Deaf Gain 17 1.3.1 Deaf Culture 17 1.3.2 Deaf Gain 18 1.3.3 Deaf Heritage 19 1.3.4 Protecting Cultural Diversity and Expression 20 1.4 Population size: BSL in the UK 21 2. Status of Deaf people in the UK 22 2.1 Social Exclusion – cost of the status quo Association 22 2.2 Case Studies – critical incidents 25 2.2.1 Access to Heath Care 25 2.2.2 Education and Training 30 2.2.3 Civil Rights, Justice and Discrimination 33 2.2.4 Employment 35 2.2.5 Public and Private Sector Providers 38 2.3 Actions Required Deaf 39 3. International Legal Instruments that support minority languages 40 3.1 Human Rights 40 3.1.1 The European Convention on Human Rights 40 3.1.2 Bill of Rights 40 3.2 International Legal instruments not promoting Sign Languages 41 3.3 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 43 4.
    [Show full text]
  • PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents
    SHAPING THE LAW OF SCOTLAND DRAFTING MATTERS! PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents Contents Introductory matters Foreword by the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC iv Why drafting matters by Andy Beattie, Chief Parliamentary Counsel vi Background viii Part 1: Drafting technique Language Plain language 2 Grammar and usage 2 Punctuation 3 Gender neutrality 3 Foreign words and Latin 3 Particular words and expressions 5 Style Conjunctions 8 Paragraphing 9 Periods of time 10 Dates 11 Numbers and symbols 11 Letter labels 13 Form and key components of Bills Form and content of Scottish Parliament Bills 14 Order of final provisions 16 Long title 17 Short title 18 Commencement provisions 19 Powers to make subordinate legislation 20 Form of subordinate legislation 23 Ancillary provision 24 Technicalities Citation of enactments 26 Cross-references 27 Definitions 28 Numbering 32 Schedules 34 i PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents Amendments and repeals Textual amendments 36 Non-textual amendments 39 Formal headings and framework 40 Repeals 41 Specific legal expressions and terms Referring to a Bill in another Bill 43 Referring to bodies corporate 43 Referring to the Scottish Ministers (individually and collectively) 44 Mode of trial 46 Referring to ‘charges’ and ‘proceedings’ 46 Types of court 47 Part 2: Guidance on specific topics I. Arbitration Arbitration 52 II. Criminal law, justice and procedure Creating offences and penalties Structure of offence and penalty provisions 54 Formulations for creating offences 55 Giving offences names 57 Drafting
    [Show full text]