Americans React to British Courts: Magistrates vs Crown Courts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 апр 2024
- 📦 Want to send us something?
Reacting To My Roots
P.O. Box 439
Jasper, Indiana 47547
USA
In this video, we react to British courts for the first time. Join us as we explore the differences between Magistrates' Courts and Crown Courts. While there are similarities between US and UK courts, we noticed many differences. From Magistrates' Courts having three magistrates instead of judges to the very interesting wigs worn in Crown Courts, and much more! Also, what exactly is the difference between Barristers and Solicitors?
Suffice it to say that British courts are so different from what we're used to. We found this very interesting and look forward to learning more about the British justice system in general. If you have any suggestions, please let us know in the comments.
Thanks for watching. If you enjoyed this reaction please give this video a thumbs up, share your thoughts in the comments and click the subscribe button to follow my journey to learn about my British and Irish ancestry.
👉 Buy me a coffee:
ko-fi.com/reactingtomyroots
👉 Join my channel membership: / @reactingtomyroots
👉 Subscribe to my channel:
/ @reactingtomyroots
👉 Original Videos:
• The Magistrates' Court
• The Crown Court
*The US judicial system is based on English Common Law.*
Similarly to the court system in the US, it is a hierarchical structure that handles both criminal and civil cases. At its base are the Magistrates' Courts and County Courts, which handle less serious criminal offences and lower-value civil cases, respectively. Sentences over 12 months custodial will automatically be referred to the crown court.
*1. Magistrates' Courts:* These are the first tier of the criminal court system where minor offences, known as 'summary offences', are tried. These courts are usually presided over by a bench of lay magistrates or a district judge. Magistrates are trained volunteers from the local community, while district judges are legally qualified and paid. Cases that are more serious but still within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Courts are called 'either-way offences' and can be sent to the Crown Court for trial or sentencing.
*2. County Courts:* Deal with civil matters like contract disputes, personal injury claims, and family law. Most cases are heard by a Circuit or District judge. Different County Courts specialise in particular types of cases, such as family law or bankruptcy.
*3. Crown Court:* This is where more serious criminal cases, known as 'indictable offences', are tried before a judge and jury. The Crown Court also hears appeals from the Magistrates' Courts and deals with sentencing in either-way offences referred from those courts.
*4. High Court:* This court handles high-value and high-importance civil cases. It has three divisions: the King’s Bench, which deals with contractual disputes and tort cases; the Chancery Division for matters concerning equity, like trusts and estates, and company law; and the Family Division, which handles complex family matters. The High Court also has a supervisory role over lower courts and tribunals through its judicial review function.
*5. Court of Appeal:* Divided into two sections: the Civil Division hears appeals from the High Court and County Courts, while the Criminal Division hears appeals from the Crown Court. The Court of Appeal deals with points of law and can uphold, overturn, or order retrials of lower court decisions.
*6. Supreme Court:* This is the final court of appeal in the UK for both civil and criminal cases from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland (in civil cases only for Scotland). It deals with cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.
Specialist courts and tribunals also exist for specific areas of law, such as the Employment Tribunal, which hears disputes between employers and employees, or the Lands Tribunal, which deals with land valuation and property issues.
The courts operate under the doctrine of precedent, meaning that decisions in higher courts bind lower courts on similar future cases. This system is known as _common law_ , which is a major influence on legal systems across the world, *including the United States* .
Unlike the US where aspiring lawyers undergo 3 years of law school and sit the bar exam; in England & Wales, the process is much longer and individuals must select which path they wish to pursue: Solicitor or Barrister. The former is best summarised as the “lawyer” you contact when seeking legal assistance. They will manage your case, plan the approach if facing trial and appoint barristers from relevant chambers. Barristers operate as “trial lawyers”. They argue the case in court as the defence counsel. Equally, if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) appoints a barrister to represent the prosecution they will perform the equivalent role as the prosecution counsel. The CPS is our equivalent of what you would call the “District Attorney (DA)” in the US.
Wow! Great explanation. taught me things I didn’t know myself as a Brit. 👏
This is a great easy to understand explanation -thank you so much
Wigs are worn to signify that the judge or barrister is in court in his/her official capacity, offering objective justice, and not in a personal capacity representing his/her personal prejudices. Judges in the UK may not express partisan, political views, and are appointed by the Crown after being chosen by an independent commission made up of judges, senior lawyers, and judicial academics. Judges, prosecutors, and other court officials are all career officials and are not elected.
It’s too show their superiority and power.
Wigs were incredibly expressive and very exclusive in the 1600th century 😉
Those wigs were dropped in New Zealand in the mid 1990s
I think it's also the case that in some circumstances wigs are removed (e.g. when children attend court as witnesses, defendants etc and where it might scare them).
It's more a case, not of why judges and barristers wear wigs, more a question of why everyone else stopped wearing them as they were worn by all gentlemen of high degree from around the 1660s, gradually disappearing from the 1790s until the1830s or thereabouts.
The long, full-bottomed periwig down to the shoulders worn by senior judges went out of fashion first, the smaller peruques that the barristers and other judges still wear lasting a few decades longer. Obviously the designs became more uniform and stylised over time.
Whatever truth there is to that os dead. There is nothing anymore without political bias, manufactured victimhood and falsified morale superiority guiding opinions.
judges in England do not have political leanings and are totally unbiased. It seems in the USA judges tend to learn towards whatever political party put him in office
That can definitely be a problem here, yes.
@@reactingtomyrootswe're seeing that with your politically-appointed Supreme Court! Thank god for our independent judiciary!
In fact being a member of any political party is actually considered a conflict of interest for a judge.
@@dasy2k1and yet they have no problem with liberal judges presiding over cases against Trump
@@vilebrequin6923 Yep, poor DJT is seeing it too.
No death sentence in the UK. In 1965, the death penalty for murder in Britain was suspended for five years and in 1969 this was made permanent. However, it was not until 1998 that the death penalty in Britain was finally abolished for all crimes. The last people executed in the UK were Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans on 13 August 1964
All crimes meaning prior to that less common and obscure things like treason and piracy on the high seas were technically still on the books as punishable by death.
Northern Ireland retained the death penalty until 1973,but nobody was executed after early 60s in practice though defendants were tried and sentenced,but in practice served long prison terms🎩
A single gallows was kept in working order-I forget at which prison- until the early 90s,but never used 🎩
Wigs are a hangover from times past and I think not used in lower courts (nowadays);also,if children are being questioned,the judge can direct the Barristers to remove their wigs to appear less intimidating (this is a comparatively recent development.Before 1972,jurors had to be property owners or qv...this,then,made it more difficult for women and young defendants to be tried by their peers🎩
Our legal system is very old back then everyone who could afford them wore a wig. Since judges were usually landed gentry they wore wigs. Gradually the wearing of wigs in the gentry faded but by then it had formed part of the uniform of high officers of the court so they could be identified and added a gravitas to the proceedings.
Happy St. George’s day folks ❤ 🏴 🌹
🏴✌🏻
Thank you xx
Happy Shakespeare birthday (well,probably) & Deathday🎩
Last men hung 60 years ago this Summer (2 at the same time and date,but in different prisons,last woman in 1955.Death penalty suspended in 1965 for a 5 year trial period &,in fact,made permanent in December 1969🎩
Happy St George's Day!❤🏴
I was charged with a motoring offence last year.
My plea was entered before a District Judge. The prosecution pushed for the trial to move to crown court to give a harder sentence if convicted.
The Judge agreed with my defense team that the case wasn't technical or complex enough to warrant the theatrics and cost, to either myself or the government, of a Crown Court trial.
My trial was arranged for a a few month later to be heard by the same District Judge.
The motion to dismiss was rejected after the prosecution had made their case as the Judge felt he wanted some points clarified.
After my defense team made their case, the judge felt that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore he had no option other than to dismiss the case and acquit me of the charge.
9:22 there are two types of lawyer in the UK associated with the court system - "solicitors" and "barristers". Historically people who passed the bar (I.E. barristers - they were allowed in front of the bar which used to run around the court outside which the general public had to stand) were allowed to address the court and make arguments in the case etc. They however did not look for clients themselves, instead "solicitors" (so called because the general public could solicit them for help) hired barristers to work for the client. This practice still continues today, however now solicitors are allowed to speak in court on magistrate's cases so they no longer need to hire barristers.
Solicitors in the UK also deal with the "mundane" legal problems people experience - purchasing or selling a house (known as conveyancing in the UK), dealing with wills and probate matters, marriage pre-nuptial agreements, etc etc. You also as above approach a solicitor to hire a barrister to represent you in court if required. You give instructions to the solicitor about how you would like the case to proceed (I.E. how to plead, who could be a witness in your defence, dealing with any paperwork etc) and they then instruct the barrister as necessary.
Solicitors attend Crown Court proceedings where the barrister is defending their client, but they don't speak generally. Instead they assist the barrister with paperwork, doing investigative work behind the scenes (tracking down witnesses or circumstantial evidence being common tasks) and that sort of thing.
Barrasters only work in England Wales. Scotland have advocates which are also sometimes known a counsel
Happy St. George's day 🏴
And you John 🏴
🏴
Magistrates deal with crimes like: minor assaults, motoring offences, theft, handling stolen goods, TV licence evasion. Magistrates can give punishments such as: fines, unpaid work in the community, prison for up to 12 months for one crime.
Magistrates can also hear cases at a family court. These magistrates deal with cases about children. They can: arrange for a child to be taken into care or put up for adoption, help separated parents make arrangements for their children, enforce child maintenance orders and make court orders to prevent domestic abuse.
Unfortunately they have actually no idea of the actual law
They are volunteers they get out of pocket expenses. They do get training. Accused people can opt for the crown court but if found guilty they could get a more severe sentences. Our court system has several appellate (higher courts).
@@christineunitedkingdom1824The Magistrates can - and do, refuse to try cases put before them, as being more serious than they are permitted to try. Within certain limits an accused person can request a trial at a higher court.
@christineunitedkingdom1824 this only applys to either way offences, summary only offences are tried in magistrates courts only with no option
@katharinereynolds25 that's why they have a legal adviser to advise of such law along with sentencing guidelines
The most important thing to remember is the US legal system comes from England. When America was a colony, the legal system was English. After the Revolt, the legal system was still English, only it changed slightly over the years, but basically, it's still the same legal system .
Being tried before a jury of 12 of your peers was English. America did not invent its own legal system it just changed over time.
Some years back, the US checked with English law about an individuals right to carry arms.
This law came into being because a Catholic King James 2 had tried to take all weapons off the Protestant majority in which he failed and was booted off the throne for.
So when we later invited William and Mary of Orange to take the throne we made sure of our right to bear arms was included in the 1689 Bill of Rights which was also later included in your bill of rights or Constitution ( whichever I forget) once you left the loving and gentle arms of England its people, Monarchy ,oh and St George oh well your loss😂
The English Bill of Rights was an act signed into law in 1689 by William III and Mary II, who became co-rulers in England after the overthrow of King James II. The bill outlined specific constitutional and civil rights and ultimately gave Parliament power over the monarchy. Many experts regard the English Bill of Rights as the primary law that set the stage for a constitutional monarchy in England. It’s also credited as being an inspiration for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Magistrates are NOT judges.
Magistrates handle " summary offence" cases such as motoring offences.
Judges preside over more serious cases and these cases would have a jury involved.
To become a magistrate you need to be between 18 and 74 years old. You MUST retire at 75.
You will get full training for the role. This last for between 3 and 5 days.
You need to have certain personal qualities and be of be of good character.
Magistrates serve for at least 5 years and be in court for at least 13 full days or 26 half days per year.
They do not get paid . Their employers MAY decide to pay them while they are in court.
They are still making judgements though!
Can you explain the difference between a Justice of the Peace and a Magistrate?
Its the same thing, just 2 different names giving @margaretnicol3423
@@mackemladry I thought it was but I wasn't sure. Thank you.
But officials with those powers in the US would be called judges. It's just a naming convention.
This is for England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems.
Okay, good to know! We'll have to look into those as well at some point :)
@@reactingtomyroots Scotland has Sheriffs - who are judges 😁!
@@reactingtomyrootsbeing a law student in Scotland about to graduate, would love to see it! also in Scotland - we have 3 verdicts!
@@jacquieclapperton9758 No, the Scottish Sheriffs take the place of the Magistrates and are similar to the English Magistrates. In the Crown Courts in Scotland they have High Court Judges or Lord and Lady Judges....
@@aarongaming100 Yes, you also have "Not Proven"
Capital punishment was abolished here in the UK back in 1969. I remember the debate at the time quite well - I was 16 years old and becoming very aware of politics. There was considerable opposition and many people feared that crime, especially murder, would increase. In fact the opposite happened. For comparison, homicide rates in the US are roughly 6x higher than the UK. Capital punishment does not deter people from committing murder. It does mean that miscarriages of justice cannot be rectified!
and the public were promised that instead of criminals being hung, people would always get life sentences instead - real life sentences. The idea of not hanging people was pushed by the idea that a lot of mistakes had been made but since then we have seen greater numbers of innocent people being killed by murderers not doing full life terms.
@@theotherside8258 Interesting!! Would you please back up that assertion with some evidence (very legal) 🙂. I'm not saying that it's not true, just that you can't make a sweeping, and very specific, statement like that and expect people to take it seriously without supporting data.
@@theotherside8258 “whole life” sentences are frequently imposed, but in some circumstances, for example where a spouse is murdered, what the French once called a “crime of passion”, or if someone had no intention to commit murder, a judge might conclude that the defendant doesn’t pose a threat to society and will impose a lesser sentence. Sometimes they get it wrong. If a sentence is deemed too short then there is an appeals process and the sentence can be reviewed and increased if appropriate. Of course it isn’t a perfect system and the tabloid press can be relied upon to highlight mistakes, ignoring the 99% of cases where it was correct.
@@theotherside8258 A picture is hung, a man is hanged. And how many of those (very few) people would have been in mental hospitals - before the Tories closed them all down).
Look up The Old Bailey, a historic & beautiful Crown Court in London where a lot of high profile cases are held
Thanks for the suggestion :)
@@reactingtomyroots Look up especially Number 1 court in the Old Bailey. It's a fascinating place to visit I see someone has suggested looking at high court cases (judges summary and sentencing. It's amazing to watch and listen too. , Look for Sky TV Court (add UK) Tha Magan carta was a large part of the law and certain clauses (! (part) 13, 39 and 40. in 1689 wThe Uk had a bill od rights which was superceded by The EU stuff although it is still part of the law. It has obviously been amended since then but very useful to read, Also Look up King's Council (or Queen's (KC or QC) ) I hope this is helpful and of interest to you. It's fascinating to watch you react to things like this.
I did Jury Service at The Old Bailey... lovely building x
"Until the 17th century, lawyers were expected to appear in court with clean, short hair and beards. Wigs made their first appearance in a courtroom purely and simply because that's what was being worn outside it; the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) made wigs essential wear for polite society."
"a barrister mainly defends people in court and a solicitor mainly performs legal work outside court"
My dad's best mate was a magistrate.
He was once presented with a young lad who had tried to snatch an old lady's bag, and the old lady who had retaliated by beating the young lad about the head with said bag.
It was an open and shut case on both counts - attempted theft for the lad, assault and battery for the lady. Dad's mate felt the old lady shouldn't have been there.l, but he had to punish them both.
The young lad got 120 hours community service.
The old lady was fined 2p - too small an amount for the court to actually collect.
I would say it was reasonable self defence-an elderly female being accosted by a young male-the bag was her only means of defending herself.
@@daveborder7751 It's technically assault and battery if the thief, having failed to grab the bag, is either attempting to leave or just standing nearby but no longer trying to steal from the old lady. OP said she 'retaliated', which suggests she hit him out of revenge rather than as an act of defence.
I'm not saying I disagree with what she did, or that I wouldn't do exactly the same if I was her, but if that's what happened then the court has to recognise that the law has been broken. Giving her a nominal fine shows that they understand why she did what she did and don't think it would be in the public interest to really punish her. It's a shame she has to catch an A&B charge but I hope she at least could have a laugh about it with her mates.
@@laserpanda94 I would imagine if he was trying to leave, he would have zero trouble getting away from an old lady. More likely he was still trying to steal the bag from her. Being beaten up by an old woman was no doubt more of a blow to his reputation among his friends/fellow criminals than even being sent to jail would have been. It wouldn't not be an issue at her age, but convictions can effect your life in terms of employment.
@@daveborder7751 I was providing hypotheticals to illustrate a point.
I don't know what the exact situation was and neither do you because the only information we have is the limited information provided by the OP. How you imagine it is probably how most people would imagine it given what we were told, but how we imagine it isn't always how it went down. The problem then is, people get angry with the courts because they have the one scenario in their head that has now become an immutable fact to them and they don't like the court's judgement when it's applied to the scenario they've created in their mind.
My point was, the court's decision can be explained (even if you don't agree) by acknowledging that the circumstances may not be exactly the same as the ones you've constructed in your head because you weren't provided with much information.
The fact that it involves a disgusting attack on a vulnerable person makes it even harder for some people to understand why the victim has ended up falling foul of the law and leads people to jump to even more conclusions based on what they _imagine_ rather than what they _know._
When I read 'old lady's bag' and 'open and shut case' I was waiting for the punchline!
Hi guys, I’ve worked in criminal prosecutions for 10 years. You mentioned the position of the defendant and witnesses - all witnesses can apply for ‘special measures’ if they are vulnerable or intimidated, such as screens to keep the defendant out of view, giving evidence in private, pre-recorded cross examination and giving evidence via live video link, so that they do not have to be in the same room. Particularly for children giving evidence, you can also request that wigs and gowns are removed to make it less intimidating. Of course these applications are not always approved when made, but often are. Hope this helps 😊. In relation to all cases going to the Mags court, it is often just a formality for more serious offences (also they may discuss bail). And we do not have a death penalty. Thanks for the videos!
Appreciate the detailed response, Emily! This helps us understand it all a bit better. That's awesome that you can make those special requests, especially in regards to kids having to testify.
As a UK police officer who's made numerous applications to the courts on behalf of victims or witnesses for special measures, everything you said was correct. In my experience young people usually prefer pre-recorded evidence such as "evidence in chief" whilst the older people, if intimidated would rather attend court but be screened from the defendant.
Then of course you get the "macho" people who will literally say to me "No, I want to go to court and look them in the eye as I give evidence... I'm not scared of them".
A solicitor is a the U.K. equivalent of a lawyer. But a solicitor doesn’t usually represent you in Crown Court. Instead your solicitor and their firm would find and employ a barrister to represent you. A barrister is basically a trial lawyer.
My son did a law degree and then decided that he didn't want to become a solicitor but wanted to become a barrister. The training takes an extra year and you have to apply to become a member of one of the four inns of court before you start your bar training. The four Inns of Court are Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn.
It may be interesting for you to look up the history etc of the Inns.
My son is a member of Inner Temple and I was very proud to be present at Call Night when he was called to the Bar. The King of Bhutan was also called to the Bar in that ceremony.
Although my son does not work as a barrister, he remains a member of Inner Temple for his lifetime and can describe himself as a non-practicing barrister or simply as a lawyer due to his current legal role.
Some of his cohort did not pass the Bar exams and then had the difficult decision as to whether they would retrain as solicitors. The training for solicitors is different to that for barristers even though there may be some cross over in the work they do. One of my cousins was a barrister specialising in maritime law and another was a solicitor working for a trade union
There was a show on British TV recently that acted out an actual trial at a Crown Court that had taken place a few years ago and I think you guys would find it interesting, I know we did. It was called "The Jury: Murder Trial". It was a real case that had been through the court. They acted out word for word, the whole case with actors playing all the key parts and re-presented the evidence and witness statements.
The clever bit was they had two Jury's side by side made up of real public members, just like a Jury is called but they did not know that there were two Jury's. Each one thought they were the only one. In a real trial, you never see what happens when the Jury retires. In this program, you get to see all the chatting and discussions that take place when both Jury's retire from the court to deliberate.
It was fascinating!
Yes, that was a brilliant idea for a programme....I do hope they do another one like that using a real past trial.
I found it terrifying but interesting. The fact that the jury mostly went on whether they liked him or related to him terrified me. The first time I have actually thought about it and wonder if we should have trained jurors instead. Those people were so gullible.
That one was far from realistic. Legal people mocked it for inaccuracies. There is a much older & better ITV series named "Crown Court" - from the '70s & '80s. One jury selected like a real one from the electoral roll, & the whole thing was also played out for real. No American style guff introduced to spice it up.
Traditionally wigs were seen as a show of status and authority. 😊 our traditions continue in this country😊
Wigs were a common fashion item for men of high status in the 17th century. The legal profession just hung on to the tradition. The more battered and tatty your wig was, used to indicate how long you had been practicing, and how experienced you were.
Happy St Georges day from Birmingham, (UK)
And to you from Yorkshire 🏴
Bostin
The court system in England and Wales consists of five levels.
1. Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
2. Court of Appeal
3. High Court
4. Crown Court
5. County Courts (Magistrates Court)
All criminal cases will start in the Magistrates’ court, but more serious criminal matters are sent to the Crown Court. Appeals from the Crown Court will go to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and potentially the UK Supreme Court. Civil cases will usually start in the County Court.
County courts are different to magistrate courts. Magistrates sit on criminal trials. County Courts judge on civil disputes between parties like breach of contract, claims for damages...
@@ethelmini agreed, My wife and I sued a company for failing to do some contracted work, won and got our money back eventually after sending in the bailiffs. The company subsequently went bust and the Official Administrators brought in to wind up the company tried to get the money back from us, claiming the company should not have paid us back (even though we had already won a judgement). They sued us. This civil case went to the County Court, I took a day off work and went to the hearing. It wasn't heard in a Court Room, but in the Judges Office, with just the Judge there. Neither the Administraors nor the Company turned up, nor any legal representatives from them. I explained what had happened and gave the Judge all the paperwork. He had no hesitation in finding for us, was peed off that they had not bothered to turn up to his hearing, he also ordered more compensation from the company, an amount to include my lost wages and inconvenience. He did explain however that we probably had no chance of getting the money since the Company was being wound up. We never did get the extra money, but we got the decision and I believe it may have influenced other cases brought against the company. The Judge was a nice guy and empathetic, whilst being professional. It was so much less intimidating just sitting in his Office than it would have been in a Court. Had it been in a Court room he would probably have ordered even more compensation for wasting the courts time and the other officials that would have had to be there.
Robes have been worn since the 14th century in the British justice system and wigs since the 17th century. Wigs originally were just a fashion statement. Now they are a symbol of status.
There’s a classic series about a defence barrister here called Rumpole of the Bailey. Highly recommend it, especially the golden thread clip
I used to love Rumpole of the Bailey.....
I volunteer as an Appropriate Adult. When a person is arrested by the police they are checked by a Nurse. Anyone deemed Vulnerable gets one of us to look after them. Those considered vulnerable include those under 18, the mentally ill and those with learning difficulties. So my job is to befriend the accused and explain the legal process in a way that they can understand. They can chose a solicitor at public expense, who will advise them on how to answer questions during the police interview. I’m with them throughout the process, from the caution, body search, biometrics (fingerprints, photo and DNA), interview and finally the decision on what happens next - Charge, Released or Bailed to Return ( bail is free, but often involves conditions and more serious charges if they break conditions or fail to return). We are unpaid, but get a little training. We could be called out to support anyone from Murders to Mentally ill just having a crisis. Our presence prevents allegations of police bullying someone into saying something they don’t want to.
Very interesting.... 👍
They must be serious offences before they bring a solicitor in. Most of the time you’re either told you’ll see a solicitor next working day, via telephone if you’re lucky or just before court on the next working day.
Nurses or Drs are usually only brought in if you complain of an injury or illness.
@@murph8411 No. Every detained person is allowed a free a solicitor, even for minor offences. I have never attended a police interview without one. The detained person can refuse a Solicitor, but then I, as the Appropriate Adult can request. All three custody facilities here in South Yorkshire
employ a Nurse.
Where you had British Empire. They still use British law as a foundation of legal rules, including the USA. So in Canada, Australia, India and many countries in Africa, wear British wigs and black gowns.
guys, i would'nt try and figure this all out😂 it takes time to learn the Law and practice, and judicial systems.
But you can thank us for your court system.
also, we came up with the word Lawyer! solicitor (transactional, pre-proceeding) and barristers (litigators) are still called lawyers.
Also, our highest court tier is the Supreme Court... we have a few different court types, with many districts'
"that has to be a wig" 😂
I'm a lawyer. All criminal cases start in the magistrates court. There will be commital proceedings for serious things like murder, where they "commit" someone to crown court for trial. The clerk of the court has the legal training who advises them what to do. Solicitors are different to barristers - barristers generally do the advocacy, solicitors do the office work (although solicitors can be advocates if they want)
The way i would see it is that solicitors are the next step from a paralegal with a law degree and can do court work (kind of a middle ground between paralegal and barrister) then barristers are what you would commonly expect of lawyers as betrayed by media etc.
Interesting, I am UK born and raised, and I still learn't some things from this video. A good next follow up video to clarify some things would be this one: ruclips.net/video/arNDSIMYm_0/видео.html
The wigs are a badge of office, and have been for more than 600 years. The judges wig is different from the barristers wigs, and shows who is who, and what they are qualified for. It also has symbolic meaning, to show the seriousness of the proceedings, and when the UK had capital punishment, if some one was sentenced to death, the judge would put a black cloth over his wig before pronouncing sentence. The last execution in the UK was in 1964 and capital punishment was finally abolished in 1969 (1973 for N.I.) A barrister famously took the tax man to court saying that the wig was business dress, and lost. In 2008 a change was made to some judges uniform. No country can join or be a member of the European Union if they have the death penalty. The UK now has a supreme court, but it is a fairly recent creation. America generally follows the French legal model, not the UK one. There is no mention on either video of the role of the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service). The person most likely to be the next prime minister, Keir Starmer of the Labour party, used be a senior member of the CPS.
Remember that the US did not come up with new laws and legal system but just continued with the English (later British) laws and legal system that you had as the 13 Colonies when you became the USA. The whole trial by jury is one of the original clauses in England’s Magna Carta document that dates from the year 1215. The Founding Fathers acknowledged that they based the US Constitution (with some tweaks) on English Common Law, including Magna Carta and England’s 1689 Bill of Rights.
yes, Steve, if you want to really look at a different legal system look at the civil law system in say France where decisions are made with strong attention to detailed legal codes rather than past cases and professional judges make decisions alongside citizen jurors. Or you could look at Denmark where jurors are trained and paid to take off work for a year to work on various cases.
Maybe you also have French Norman or Scandi roots too! A lot of Brits do too.
There are no British laws as both Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own laws.
@@douglasstocks9698 true. I worded that clumsily in my haste to type.
My son is going to be a magistrate. You apply to be one. You have to have a clean criminal record. You dont get paid to be in court for that day, But you only do it a few times a year, as you normally have a full-time job. If you work for the government/council, they tend to pay you for your day in court as your normal day at work.
You can still apply if you have a past record but it will be assessed on a case by case basis and min sittings a year is 13 full days or 26 half days (a sitting is classed as a half day)
The wigs are a head covering to show respect for the Court. It denotes the main players in the room. The tattier the wig, the more experienced the wearer. It's another tradition kept.
HI STEVE & LINDSY
I have previously worked as a legal assistant in a Solicitors office and the Solicitor can represent their client as far as County Court, but if the case needs to go before a Judge and Jury in a Crown Court the Solicitor will instruct a Barrister from a Barristers Chmber to represent their cluent/the accused in a Crown Court.
Barristers are referred to as for example Joe/Jane Bloggs KC the KC stands for King's Counsel be they Defence or Prosecution Counsel. The Barristers will also have a Junior sitting behind them (from their own chambers) and sitting behind the Junior Barrister (the juniors do not have KC after their name as they have not taken silk, i.e. been called to the bar) will be the instructing Solicitor, so if the accused needs a point passed to his Barrister he will pass it to his solicitor who passes it to the Junior who passes it to the Barrister.
If for some reason the Barrister cannot appear at the Trial the Junior will act in his place until the Barrister is free to appear at the trial. He may for example be tied for a short while at the end of a previous case he was representing.
In Scotland we have our own legal and court system which is different to the rest of the UK. The tiers of the Court system here are, in order of precedence, the High Court of the Judiciary (the High Court), the Sheriff Courts and Justice of the Peace courts. There is also the Court of Session. The top criminal cases appear in the High Court and top civil cases in the Court of Session with most cases being heard in the Sheriff Courts.
It is actuallycalled The High Court of the JUSTICIARY
Was about the comment the same. This video isn't about "UK Courts" it's E&W courts system
@@sheenamaclean8324Didn't notice the predictive text mistake 😊
We changed to a supreme court system under Labour PM Blair, before that the top court in the UK was the House of Lords the second chamber in Parliament.
Back in the day before the Death Penalty was abolished, the High court Judge would put a Black Cap on top of his wig to symbolise the gravity of the sentence of the 'Death Penalty' passed by the judge.
Symbolism of Authority and Severity: The black cap was a visual representation of the judge’s authority and the gravity of the situation. When a judge donned the black cap, it signaled the solemnity of the moment and the severity of the sentence being pronounced.
Tradition and Ritual: The use of the black cap had deep historical roots. It was part of the traditional regalia worn by judges during capital trials. The act of putting on the black cap was a ritualistic gesture that emphasized the weight of the decision being made.
Public Perception: The black cap served as a powerful visual cue for the public. Its presence in the courtroom conveyed the finality of the judgment and the irreversible nature of the death penalty. The judge’s somber demeanor, combined with the black cap, left a lasting impression on those present.
Separation of Roles: By wearing the black cap, judges symbolically separated their roles as legal professionals from their personal feelings. It was a way to emphasize that the decision was based on the law and not on personal emotions or biases.
Legal Tradition: The use of the black cap was deeply ingrained in legal tradition. Even after the abolition of the death penalty in the UK in 1965, the black cap continued to be part of a judge’s official attire during certain ceremonial occasions.
In summary, the black cap was a potent symbol that conveyed the seriousness of capital punishment and underscored the judge’s role as a dispenser of justice. Its historical significance continues to be remembered even though the death penalty is no longer practiced in the UK .
Hey guys. My grandfather was a magistrates Clerk and my father was a solicitor (lawyer). Most towns and cities have a magistrates court to hear minor offences. The barristers in crown court are specialized lawyers. They usually know parts of the law inside out over and above a solicitor and can act for either side.
The other layer to this is that if the police arrest you and want to charge you with a serious offence they must first put the evidence before the crown prosecution service (cps) to decide if there's enough evidence for a charge and what that charge will be. It's meant to be a safeguard of the public's money in that they will only authorise a charge and therefore an appearance in court if they believe there is a good chance of the defendant getting convicted of said charge.
The most interesting case my grandad heard as a magistrates clerk and had to give legal advice for, was someone that picked up a milk bottle (glass)..smashed it and tried to use it against a person. The question was whether by smashing the milk bottle it turned into an offensive weapon? This could result in a much more serious sentence.
That does sound like a very interesting case! I'd love to hear what the verdict was. :)
Barristers are lawyers whose primary specialisation is in argument and presenting a case in court (at the Bar). They can further specialise in different types of law, e.g. criminal, employment, etc.
As a serving UK officer there are some offences the police can charge for without CPS consultation, other offences MUST be directed to the CPS for charging advice. And believe me it takes ages to get it... I have sat on hold for hours before waiting to speak to the on-call CPS duty lawyer for charging advice and decisions. The absolute quickest one I ever had was 30 minutes which was astonishingly quick.
It is also wrongly believed that the CPS are the only authority in England and Wales who can prosecute people. This isn't the case and other agencies or government bodies can bring prosecutions against people, such as.
RSPCA - if you were accused of wiful neglect of an animal.
Health and Safety Executive - I.e you are a company director, and through poor safety procedures and a lack of funding for vital safety equipment, an employee of yours is severely injured, loses a limb, or dies.
Serious Fraud Office
HM Revenue & Customs
National Crime Agency (NCA)
Financial Conduct Agency (FCA)
Can also all bring prosecutions against a person.
@@thefiestaguy8831 And, as we now know - The Post Office.
27:07 You might find it interesting to see a video of a high court judgement. Our trials aren’t ever televised but the “summing up” and sentencing is at the most senior courts. The judge doesn’t just pass a sentence and give the reasons why, but they first set out a summary of the relevant background and context.
Our judges and magistrates work within published sentencing guidelines. Each offence has a band of sentences up to the maximum penalty or prison sentence in law and recommend lowest sentence. The judge will start in the centre, then apply all the aggravating factors, then apply the mitigating factors, and the sentence is wherever that leads him on the scale.
This seeks to give consistency but there are plenty of example where it hasn’t and people have had far more serious penalties for a crime than others have received for a much worse crime.
Magna Carta is no longer in UK law but its principles have shaped our legal system. One of the key rights was removing the unilateral right of the monarch to convict and sentence, and to give people the right to be tried “by their peers” (other ordinary commoners) which is where the concept of our jury comes originates.
I’m not sure if it’s the main reason but the magistrates court is effectively the first layer in being tried by your peers. Any UK national adult can apply to be one (there is a tough vetting process) and the range of magistrates is intended to reflect the diversity of the population, not be populated by the middle classes who have gone to expensive schools and live a very different life to the people who come before them. How can the court system fairly deal with someone who hasn’t paid a bill if all the magistrates have never known what it’s like to live with a very low income? The courts are really eager to get much younger people to be magistrates and work it around their day jobs.
Thanks for such a detailed response! Definitely helps us understand the topic a little better and will have to add the 'high court judgement' to our list of things to check out.
As for sentencing not fitting crimes--the same definitely goes here in the US, unfortunately.
In Scotland they sometimes televise cases
The two types of lawyers are solicitors, who are the first to become involved either as prosecutors or defence representatives and will assemble the evidence for each side. In most cases in the magistrates’ courts only solicitors will appear in court. The second are barristers, who are instructed by the solicitor to represent the prosecution or defence in the Crown Court. Some solicitors now have the right to appear at the Crown Court, but this is not the usual situation. The next higher court is the Appeals court - which will hear appeals by the defence against a guilty verdict or the sentence. These are normally heard by three higher rank judges. The highest court in the Country is the Supreme Court which is mainly concerned with legal principles and constitutional matters. There are seven judges - normally not all would sit on one case. Wigs and gowns are still worn by judges and barristers, but not in the Supreme Court - it is a centuries old tradition, which some people feel should now be abandoned, but the majority still feel it gives the court an air of solemnity and dignity.
There is no such thing as UK law.
@@reactingtomyroots in Scotland all criminal cases are brought by either the Procurator Fiscal in the Sheriff Court or by advocate deputies they are advocates or solicitor-advocates who are appointed by the Lord Advocate, in whose name all prosecutions are brought in the public interest. It is possible, although extremely rare, for a private prosecution to be brought.
Here is footage of an actual murder trial where a husband was charged with murdering his wife by pushing her off Arthurs Seat in Edinburgh
ruclips.net/video/51IZ_2vWFcY/видео.htmlsi=fK9ErRABxGP_jknW
Love you guys, 'Reacting To My Roots'. Just a quick note. Don't forget that most of your laws, legal system, etc., is based upon the British legal systems, via the 13 colonies, etc. Yes you have variations, but the essential laws, English common law, innocent until proven guilty, due process of law, etc., trail by jury. The nuts and bolts 😊
Happy Saint George's day
Happy semi fictional normal person day!
🏴✌🏻
Happy Saint George's day to you @michaelfrancis8699
Careful Michael those who get upset on behalf of others might cancel you
@@cyberash3000did you say that when it was St Patrick's day?
Most of the time, when you see a British law court in a film, they are basing this usually on the "Old Bailey" crown court in London- Films like "in the name of the father" or "Clear and Present Danger" . This court is used for very high profile cases of national importance, such as dealing with terrorism or multiple murders.
Here in the UK all cases are first heard in a Magistrates Court, but the Defendant can ask to go directly to the Crown Court, & the Magistrates also can send serious matters there after an initial hearing. This is like an arraignment hearing in the US. Magistrates are regular citizens chosen for good character, usually a local professionals of good standing, like doctors or teachers, or business people, who have time to spare to serve. These are nominated by other citizens locally. The Magistrates are advised by Lawyers as they try each case. Most towns have Magistrates Courts, but Crown Courts are more regional.
There will be a pool of Magistrates, who will sit as they are available. People only stand as the Magistrates enter the room, as is done when the Judge in a Crown Court enters, showing respect for the Law. During the case everyone sits down. The actual appearance of the courtroom varies according to how old the building is. The one in the video is a new style building set up. A juvenile court just means a session held specially for young people, it will be in the same place as regular courts, but may leave off the wigs etc, & evidence may be presented via a video so that young people are not intimidated by the set up. Courthouses have other less formal rooms where these things can be done besides the actual Courtroom.
A Solicitor is a general lawyer, who may deal with all sorts of legal stuff, including house sales, as well as criminal matters. A defendant may already know a solicitor, but if not the system can arrange for one to work on behalf of a defendant. They will look for a Barrister to handle the Court case. A Barrister is a person who has passed the Legal 'Bar' exams, making them a fully qualified Trial Lawyer. A Barrister is a trial lawyer, specially dealing with particular types of case, i e murder, fraud or other serious matters. The Defendant's Solicitor as well as a Barrister working for them, will both be present in court during the trial. The defendant & his lawyers cannot discuss things during the hearing, but beforehand, & during recesses.
The case where the Lawyers & Judge where wigs is the Crown Court, with a full jury etc.
The wigs go back to the days, in the 18th century, when most men wore wigs, but are retained to show the official status they hold as officers of the Law. The Police used to present these cases as prosecutors in the past, but several decades ago a Crown Prosecution Service was set up, a bit like the US District Attorney's Office . The 'little cubby' is called the Dock.
The Death sentence ended in the 1960's, but imprisonment without release, i e for all life can be imposed. Above the usual Crown Courts there are the High Court, usually sitting in London, & in recent years there has been created a Supreme Court made up of top Judges. The old Highest Court was the House of Lords, when such cases had to go to Parliament, to a full sitting of the House of Lords. This was changed because it took up too much Parliamentary time, & the cases were very slow getting through the system.
Not sure I'd say the case is "heard". They do hear committal proceedings, but only decide if there's a case to answer and on bail.
Your first line is wrong. There are separate legal systems in England & Wales /Scotland/northern Ireland which work in different ways.
Yes there are sheriffs instead of judges or magistrates in Scotland. The normal courts are called sheriff courts and the high courts are still called high courts.
The jury was also 15 people in a criminal case and there were 3 possible verdicts. Not guilty, guilty and not proven.
I don’t know if they have changed it already but they are altering verdicts to align with English courts.
You also just need a simple majority of jurors to agree so 8 is enough to convict someone in Scotland. Even if jurors drop out due to illness or some other reason as long as there are 12 left the trial can continue but they still need 8 jurors to agree afaik.
most magistrates don't even know the law, that's why they have a clerk of the court. stipendiary magistrates know the law. most magistrates are normally ordinary people. all criminal cases start of in magistrates court where it's decided if the person can be bailed or remanded into custody. if the case is serious they will send the case to the crown court. solicitors work in magistrates court and in the crown court it's barristers. sometime even less serious cases can be taken to the crown court by the defendant as he would prefer a jury ( 12 people) to decide his guilt rather then magistrates. the defendant stands in the dock, usually with security if he has been in custody. the dock usually has a doorway behind it that leads down to cells
I did jury service a few years ago.The court is in Lancaster castle, where it has been for 1100 years. The branding iron they used to use is still hung up.The jury room was in a tower. Called the drop room because when they hung people,they were pushed out a door ,of this room !
Wigs were initially adopted to distinguish barristers from solicitors, convey formality, and maintain a sense of tradition within the legal profession. While the use of wigs has evolved over time and is no longer mandatory in all court appearances, they continue to be worn in criminal cases and by more senior barristers as a symbol of the legal profession’s heritage.
We don’t have capital punishment in the UK either during peacetime or times of conflict. The youth court is also known as Juvenile court. In the eyes of the law you are an adult at age 17. We have a Supreme Court which is the final court of appeal for civil and criminal cases.it hears the cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the population. Wigs were seen as a symbol of status and power. They were introduced in the 17th century and were worn because they were fashionable at the time. They were worn by rich people so were seen as important people. Although wigs became unfashionable the legal system still used them and then became a formal requirement.
@janphillips2534 Just wanted correct you on your mistake about the actual age of an adult is this &/or that legal lawful age for all persons is (18 Eighteen) & Over but NOT (17 Seventeen) at all simply because (17 Seventeen) year olds who are NOT in the legal age to buy &/or purchase and being served of any Alcohol at all which is Underage of (18 Eighteen) of requirements of course.
@@user-we8ue9qy9l I worked as a civilian for the police for 18 years and whist there the age of an adult for police purposes was 17 years and I assume it still is. This is for criminal purposes only not for school leaving age, etc.
@@janphillips2534 Ahh right now I see & I didn't know about this at all of considering (17 Seventeen) as an adult for only police purposes for criminal purposes &/or matters only & Thank You Very Much & Cheers for that information and I just presume &/or thought you got age of an adult is (17 Seventeen) instead of (18 Eighteen) all wrong as your mistake in the very first place of course.
@@user-we8ue9qy9l The age thing is a bit of a mess really. You can join the army at 16 but can’t smoke or drink in a pub until eighteen . I reckon it should be eighteen across the board it makes much more sense!
@@janphillips2534 But I do find this age thing very confusing quite frankly & I do agree it should be across the board & also in United States America that there are some American States that you have to be at least (21 Twenty-One) & over to have alcohol believe it or not of course. Down here in Australia in the very old days it was used to be (21 Twenty-One) as the drinking age & because that the pubs & clubs & hotels were losing businesses financially by not making enough money in their trading hours is that the Laws had be changed for the age of drinking & buying alcohol from a bottle shop from dropping the age from (21 Twenty-One) down to (18 Eighteen) just to drum up businesses for all of the Pubs & Clubs & Hotels to serve (18 Eighteen) year olds as their new younger customers of course.
Scots Law is different from English/Welsh Law.
In Scots Law the bottom level is the Justice of the Peace Court with a Justice of the Peace who does minor summary cases with max sentencing of 60 days.
Then there's the Sheriff court where the local Sheriff deals with low court cases with a max. sentencing of 5 years imprisonment. (The Sheriff is not a policeman as in the US, he was a lwyer or solicitor and there's one appointed for each Scottish district.)
Then there's the high court with a Judge that handles serious crime. There is no max. sentencing, its down to the Judge.
A member of the public can apply to become a justice of the peace. Every Justice of the peace is appointed a legal advisor. They serve for about 5 years.
The judiciary appoints sheriffs and judges from Advocates and solicitors with the appropriate skill and experience.
The judiciary and the Scottish First Minister select and propose the people for the King to appoint to the various courts.
We have three possible outcomes - Not Guilty, Not Proven, and Guilty.
Note also the origin of Sheriff being Shire Reive. A rieve was the person who heard a case and determined it's resolution including imprisonment and in medieval times, mutilation and death. A shire is basically a county. So they would hear cases from all courts in a county generally in order and was known as a circuit. Hence in England and Wales this became a Circuit Judge.
Just to pick up on something you looked a bit confused by, at the end where the judge says “I may however postpone sentencing where other factors are to be considered. This can be particularly appropriate where….the defendant’s background is likely to have a significant impact on the sentence I pass”
So, just to explain, even if you have murdered 70 people previous to the crime you stand accused of, this can not be brought up in front of a jury in case it prejudices the case against you and they find you guilty on the balance of probability instead of the actual indisputable evidence.
However, if you are found guilty, the judge will absolutely be looking into this when deciding an appropriate sentence. If your life has been a shining example of blamelessness and this has been a first time, out of character offence, possibly even due to mitigating circumstances such as being the victim of abuse or suffering from mental health issues, you will not be getting the same sentence as somebody who has clearly presented a consistent danger to the public and based on this latest crime, is therefore likely to continue to do so.
The jury will be dismissed because their job is concluded and they have no right to know your criminal or mental history or other private information that the judge may use when deciding on an appropriate sentence.
Court levels beyond Crown Court are Court of Appeal, High Court, and Supreme Court.
Wigs came in hundreds of years ago when wigs were a fashion item, the disappeared eventually, but hung on in the legal system as a kind of 'Badge of Office' in Court proceedings.
No capital punishment in UK
Thank goodness (think Timothy Evans 😢).
Formally abolished in 1998
Last enforced in 1964
🇬🇧
@@andypandy9013 or derek bently who according to my mum did not have a violent bone in his body. my mum was a very good friend of his sister iris. as derek was slow on the uptake he used to hang around with iris & her mates mum included. mum said he was a petty thief, mum went to her grave believing like iris that the met stitched him up because somebody had to swing & craig was to young.
@@nobbynobbynoob
Yes, I remember it at the time. 😃
unfortunately.
Heya Steve, and Lindsey
Here in the UK we have more than just a Magistrates' and Crown Court, as there are things that even a Crown Court cannot decide upon.
The hierarchy of courts in the UK, going from lowest to highest is:
Magistrates' Court (lowest court, and deals with some civil cases, but mostly criminal cases. Can issue judgement and punishment, but for serious offences, referred to Crown court)
Crown and County Courts ( A crown court is for criminal cases, and a county court for civil cases, with jury)
High Court (based in London, it deals with civil cases and appeals from the lower County Courts, and is made up of 3 dvisions: Chancery, Kings' Bench, and Family))
Court of Appeal (2nd most senior court in the UK. It hears appeals made by County Court of the High Court)
Supreme Court (Highest court in the UK for both civil and criminal cases, and hears appeals from both criminal and civil cases from the Court of Appeal and High Court)
Also yes, a lawyer in the UK is called a solicitor. Same thing really, and sometimes we use both interchangeably.
After the Supreme Court they can try and appeal to the European court of human rights
That's only for England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have different systems.
If you had studied British history in school, you would have understood about the wigs in Britain. They originated in France as a fashion style - think “Tale of Two Cities” and “Jeanne Du Barry”. They were more likely to be worn by the wealthy and that included the lawyers and judges in the legal profession. Over time, the fashion subsided but the wigs remained in the legal profession. Since the US legal system was based on the British system, wigs were worn in the US for a time, but they were later discarded. Britain and Australia still wear wigs in court, depending on the particular case and the Judges’ own preference. If the Judge wears a wig, the barristers will follow his lead.
The term 'attorney' used to be used in the UK for a type of lawyer, but acts of parliament in the late 19th century re-designated all attorneys as solicitors, mostly abolishing the term in the UK. The word is still used in law though, as there is still an 'attorney general' and there are 'patent attorneys'. Also, an individual can have 'power of attorney' to act on behalf of somebody else.
Happy St. George's Day. I've done my fair chunk of Jury Duty. The most stressful thing I've ever done
Only had one stint, with three cases. Loved it!
Happy St George's day . 🤍❤🤍
And to you 🏴
The reason why all cases start at the magistrates is, first is so the defendant can put in an early guilty plea, also if the case does go to the crown court regardless of the defendant pleas, the magistrates can choose to have the defendant held in custody, or released on bail before their trial in the crown court.
Also having a trial at a crown court takes lots of time arranging, jurors need to be summoned, a judge and barristers also need to be available, witnesses need to be available, all this for a trial can take a while, so that's why the first bit of it starts at magistrates court, remember a guilty plea means there's less things to organise at the crown court.
The main difference between our two systems is public access. In the UK, we still ban all forms of photography from our courts including still photos as well as film. This means in high profile cases that are covered on the news the only representations we get are literal drawings made by someone in the court. That contrast massively from the US where high profile cases are now live-streamed on the internet in full HD
Happy St George's day🏴
The dealth penalty was still technically in place in the UK for Treason until 1998.
Treason death penalty is still on the table dispite warmonger and I can't remember the warmongers name but he tried to change it from death penalty to 25yrs in prison but that didn't happen
@@katharinereynolds25Under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, the maximum penalty for treason is life imprisonment. Jazwant Singh Chail was charged under the Treason Act 1842 last year for trying to kill QE.
Even replicating the monarchs coat of arms without permission is considered treason. I got this from a Readers Digest book of unusual laws in the 70’s 😂
@@iandale I suspect that was as reliable as most of Readers Digest
@@katharinereynolds25 no it isn't. When we signed the European declaration of human rights in 1998 it was formally abolished for all crimes
The current maximum sentance for treason is a whole life sentence (life without parole). The starting point is a life sentence with a defined minimum tariff (ie 40 to life in American parlance)
To me the major difference between UK & US legal system is that UK Judges are NOT either elected or politically appointed. Which means that party politics is kept out of the judicial system and we don’t have the kind of shenanigans that seems to be going on in your Supreme Court. However because of the methodology of training barristers ( & most judges are selected from practicing barristers) there does tend to be a preponderance of upper middle class judges. Just saying.
I have sat in on a Magistrate's Court before and the cases were hilarious. A man was released from prison, got drunk, went around to his ex's (restraining order), tried to smash his way in, police called, arrested, up before the Mag's the next morning. Parole revoked, back to the same prison he left 24 hours earlier. i did wonder whether the prison staff bothered changing his bedding as they expected him back. Another case was a man accused of stealing diesel from a lorry depot. He used a container which leaked, so the police sniffer dog followed the trail to his house. His hands and clothes smelt of diesel. He had been convicted of the same from the same place before. The third was released because the CPS forgot to bring the case file with them.
The magistrates court is a more democratic de
velopment of what uses to be termed Justice of the Peace, often a rich local landowner or minor aristocrat, who heard these cases alone. They often had no legal training either and could be petty and vindictive
Magistrates have advisors to explain points of law. Anyone can apply to be a magistrate. As well as magistrates being able to refer a case to the crown court in certain circumstances, the defendant appearing in a magistrate's court has the absolute right to apply for their case to be heard in a Crown Court if they think they'll get a fairer trial, remembering that the prosecution and defence lawyers in the Crown Court are called barristers, which means they have passed the bar, same as lawyers in the US. That's not to say that the solicitors who provide legal representation in magistrates court aren't qualified, it's just a different type of qualification.
I feel the need to reiterate that there isn’t just one legal system in the UK. One that covers England and Wales (which this video represents), one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. So three legal systems in total…which I’m sure that there are many within England and Wales that don’t really realise this.
The one and only time I ever had to give evidence at a court case, was in a Magistrates court and I was the victim of the crime. Where I sat (when I was brought through) was off to the side and I was instructed by the Clerk of the Court to always direct my answers to the Magistrates, no matter which solicitor asked the question (there were two defendants, each with their own solicitor).
The wigs and robes are in part a very long standing tradition which makes it easy to tell at a glance who the main legal representatives and the judges are. I have heard it stated that the tradition continues in part because although it makes the judges and barristers stand out in the courtroom, it still offers a degree on anonymity for outside of a court setting.
Only barristers can be the legal representatives in Crown /High Court cases (and Court of Appeals, Supreme Court etc) and have to gain a specific further qualification (the bar exam) and complete your pupillage and tenancy (which I presume is akin to an apprenticeship, where there is a large degree of hands on training). Weirdly, you DON’T actually HAVE to have a law degree to train to be a barrister, you just have to have gained a 2:2 or above in your degree to apply for the bar exam.
Solicitors however do study law and have gained a qualification in it. So they are essentially the legal researchers and consultants for the barristers…though there is a lower level solicitor too, who’s job title is legal executive though they tend to specialise in just one field of law (ie conveyancing) and do not do any courtroom representation at any level. The solicitor will in all likelihood be the part of the legal team that has the most interaction with whoever they’re representing, be that the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) or the defendant and they will be the ones who pour over the evidence to find the parts that are most beneficial to the case they are putting forward.
I will point out that although I myself am Scottish, the information I have given is really for the legal system of England and Wales, so I cannot guarantee that it will be relevant to the systems in either Scotland or Northern Ireland.
I’d also like to point out that you might find it interesting to look into how, due to the advances in forensics, the legal systems in the UK (and I think in many other countries too) have abolished the ‘double jeopardy’ rule. Which means that we have had a few people who had previously been found innocent, that due to the discovery of new evidence (via DNA testing and further types of screening previously unavailable) re-tried and found guilty. There is a specific standard of new evidence that has to be met before a case goes before a judge to rule on whether or not a re-trial can go ahead but it does mean that we have families of victims that are now able to see justice done. Two high profile cases that have been through this is the ‘Worlds End Murders’ in Edinburgh and the ‘Babes in the Wood Murders’ in Brighton.
Very informative, thanks!
Americans just lump everything in together as they don't know the difference between British and English 😂
12:00 the wigs are mainly tradition these days. Originally all upper-class people wore wigs because they often shaved their heads bald (women included) to control head lice etc, and so they could wear fancy wigs to demonstrate their wealth (women especially did this with wigs in the shape of other things, including some with bird cages in, others shaped like sailing ships etc).
For the judiciary because judges were often nobles they were used to wearing wigs so they kept them, and barristers (lawyers), being a learned profession (I.E. they were educated at university), wanted to ape their betters so wore wigs also. Then court dress was standardised at some point in the past and it hasn't changed much since (although they've done away with knee britches and stockings, people instead wearing formal business attire under their robes). There was a tradition that barristers in court changed to black robes in the early 1700s when Queen Anne died as a sign of mourning but then they never changed back to colourful robes, but I don't know how true that is. It's also said they used to wear two pairs of stockings to stop the hairs on their legs poking through and looking nasty!
These days they've kept the wigs and robes in most cases (they aren't worn at all usually in "family court" these days (those courts deal with child custody cases or divorces mainly) and can be removed in other cases at the Judge's discretion when dealing with children, vulnerable people etc. The reason they keep them is to make themselves more anonymous and to show that they are being impersonal and are working for a just outcome to the case rather than a personally motivated one.
In very simplified terms, Criminal Courts of England and Wales are:
Magistrates' Court these deal with petty offences and cannot sentence you to more than one year until recently their powers were even more limited. This may before 1 judge or 3 magistrates.
Crown Court which is very similar to your Superior Courts.
High Court (King's Bench Division) may hear appeals from the Magistrates Court but the High Court only involves itself in matters of law "by way of case stated".
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) hears appeals from the Crown Court.
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the highest court in the UK and hears appeals from the Court of Appeal from both England and Wales, and Northern Ireland if it is of particular constitutional or public importance, and from the High Court of Justiciary (not to be confused with the High Court of Justice used in England and Wales and the Court of the same name in Northern Ireland) in Scotland but only on devolution and human rights issues, most appeals in Scotland cannot be referred to the Supreme Court.
Solicitor is one type of lawyer and can speak in the lower courts, in the higher courts they need additional qualifications but in serious cases even then they will get a Barrister, who does advocacy and specialist work but cannot do everyday litigation.
Happy St George’s Day, for England and St George 🏴🏴
Happy St George’s Day🏴🏴
Hi Steve, I've been watching your videos for a while and now finally subscribed. I must say that your ability to have an open mind and able to understand the reasons behind commentary in the videos you watch is commendable. I would like to add that you most likely know more than the average Brit. British nowadays like most Western countries don't respect what it took to get the lives and freedoms we have now. We take it for granted and don't realise that it's under threat
In the UK, the wearing of wigs in court by judges and barristers is a tradition that dates back to the 17th century. Initially, wigs were part of fashionable dress in society, and wearing them in court signified professionalism and formality. Over time, the practice became a symbol of the legal profession's continuity and an emblem of anonymity, helping to maintain a sense of authority and neutrality. Although modernisation and changes in attire norms have led to the practice being abandoned in some areas, wigs are still worn in many cases, particularly in criminal courts, to preserve these traditional values.
Barristers are usually hired by solicitors to represent a case in court and only become involved when appearing before a court is needed. A barrister pleads the case on behalf of the client and the client's solicitor.
But that is only in crown court, if you are actually trying to teach Steve and linsey the differences please give them the facts
@@katharinereynolds25 Not true, Barristers undertaking public access work can provide legal advice and representation in court in all areas of law and are entitled to represent clients in any court or tribunal in England and Wales.
They have rights of audience in all criminal courts from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
@@katharinereynolds25 Barristers are usually hired by solicitors to represent a case in any court and only become involved when appearing before a court is needed. A barrister pleads the case on behalf of the client and the client's solicitor.
The difference been a solicitor and barrister is a bit like the difference between a doctor and a surgeon. A doctor can treat patients and perhaps undertake minor procedures, in the same way that a solicitor acts for clients and represents them in preliminary court hearings. However, if the patient’s needs are more serious, then they may need surgery and it will of course be a surgeon who does it, not the doctor; in legal cases where more complex hearings are involved, then the client may be represented by a barrister.
Judges wear wigs because back in the day wearing wigs was a cool fashion statement which indicated a wealthy, important person (seriously!) This allowed them project an air of authority which stuck and over time became a tradition.
Our Crown Court is in Lincoln Castle where the Kings/Queens justice has been dispensed since 1068
The wig was seen as a symbol of authority, and lawyers would wear their wigs in the courtroom, as well as outside of it, to show their status and power also in the 17th century, lawyers were expected to appear in court with clean, short hair and beards. Wigs made their first appearance in a courtroom purely and simply because that's what was being worn outside it; the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) made wigs essential wear for polite society. Hope that helps you understand 🙂
We don't use the word "attorney " at all,Lindsey 🎩
It used to be the main word for lawyer in the UK until they were formally separated into the solicitor and barrister groups. The US still uses the original British word.
Magistrates Courts are for lessor offences: Summary Offences. Motoring Offences, Criminal Damage, Common Assault (that doesn't cause injury) They can only sentence someone for a maximum of 6 months... Happy St George's Day!
So if you've already received the maximum sentence of 6 months, does that mean you can tell them to fuck off?
they can sentence up to 12 months. for two offences
And magistrates can retain either way offenses
Baristers have different training. A solicitor can sit a bar transfer test if they get approval from the Bar Association. Barristers training focused on trial, solicitors on general legal work like wills, contracts, property law etc. You will usually get solicitors specialising in family law representing in court for child cistody or divorce etc. So each expertise is a generallity than a strict division. Barristers cost alot more. A Silk( an experienced senior Barrister usually 10- 15 years and above can apply, with a good track record is appointed by reccomendation of The Lord Chancellor and is a higher level of Barrister they will be involved in serious cases like murder)
England and Wales (not sure about Scotland and Northern Ireland) there is a scheme where if someone feels the sentence in some serious cases is too light they can ask for it to be reviewed and sometimes a tougher sentence can be given. A request must be done within 28 days of the sentencing.
The wigs are to depersonalise the judges and lawyers
That makes sense!
The English Court system is based off common-law as is American system the Scottish court system is based off roman law which is similar to most of Europe. Yup there are two different legal systems in the UK. Which means that there are two different ways laws are made. General law that applies to all UK is done at Parliament level but country level is done through the likes of Scottish Parliament, Welsh Parliament etc. Then of course there are European laws made by European Parliament that come in to effect too.
We left the EU :D
@@jasoncallow860 yeah but some laws are still in effect.
@@caleywytch1 almost all EU law before 2020 remains in effect.... quite a lot of it was actually crafted by the UK
There's quite a few types of court, for example County Courts that deal with non-criminal, civil cases , Family Courts (that deal with family-related matters usually through mediation), Youth Courts (that are less formal, not open to the public and be a precursor to the Crown Court for more serious crimes), Tribunal Courts (for employment and financial matters), Coroners Courts (to investigate unusual deaths and hold inquests), Courts of Protection (dealing with mental capacity) and some others dealing with business and property. Depending on the seriousness of the matters being dealt with they may be presided over by magistrates or judges.
Barristers are hired by solicitors to advocate in Court while solicitors usually practice law outside of the courtroom (though the roles may overlap).
Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, listen to evidence given in criminal, family and youth courts and follow structured decision-making processes and sentencing guidelines in criminal cases. They are advised on points of law by a legal adviser who sits in court with them. Magistrates sit in benches of three, made up of two wingers and a presiding justice who receives special training to act as chair. All three magistrates contribute to the decision-making, but the presiding justice speaks on their behalf in court. Magistrates are unpaid volunteer members of the judiciary. However, they can claim expenses to cover certain costs.
Hi guys, we have a body called 'The Crown Prosecution Service' or CPS, they decide where the cases get heard, so if it was a traffic offence or minor shoplifting the case would be sent to a magistrates Court, if it were a serious crime like assault or rape, that case would be heard in a crown court. I hope that makes it easier to understand. Also Magistrates, no jury, Crown Courts are tried before a jury.
Great post guys. 👍🏻👏🏻
and the Public Prosecution Service.
There are different types of offence according to their seriousness.
Summary offences like speeding, DVLA or theft of small value items say from a shop or even
assault all go to the Mags Court.
The more serious offences of theft or GBH (grievous bodily harm) are either-way and can be heard in Mags Court or the Crown Court. Either the Magistrates can send a case there or the Defendant can ask for a Crown Court trial if they're pleading Not Guilty
The most serious cases of assault, murder, robbery with violence as examples are known as indictable and will always go to the Crown Court.
But remember ALL three of these types of cases will have an initial appearance in the Mags Court
Unless you are a sub postmaster, where your employer can prosecute without reference to the CPS (or any other legal authority) - an anomaly in the law that has recently come to light due to the Post Office Horizon scandal.
As you called it a cubby, that is a dock. We go off maritime law. Why i dont know cause its the sea law, even though we live on land.
Wigs are worn as a symbol of authority.
Yes we have a public gallery in all courts.
Oh no we got a live one
Happy St George’s day to all my English friends, from Scotland.
Fun fact, back when we still had the death penalty there was a special black cap the judge would have to put on before giving the death sentence. Of course since the death penalty has been abolished the black cap is no longer used though on formal ceremonial occassions the black cap is sometimes carried behind the judge on a little cushion
Happy Saint George's Day- you missed a trick and today should have done a video about blokes chasing dragons, much more exciting than old blokes wearing curly wigs!!!!
Fun fact: wigs were originally worn by nobility to cover up baldness from syphilis. The practice was popularised by King Louis of France.
I used to be a probation officer and spent many happy hours in the magistrates and the Crown Court! All cases, even the most serious, have to start in the magistrates court, but may be committed to the Crown Court. Normally this is an automatic process but you can have an “old style commital” whereby there is a trial in the magistrates court, which can decide to dismiss the case or send it the Crown Court. The normal oath for witnesses is “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”: witnesses who had watched too many American court programmes would sometime add “So help me God”. The Crown Court is the second tier of court and acts as a court of appeal for magistrates court. There is a Court of Appeal for cases heard in the Crown Court and a Supreme Court which decides the most important cases, particularly where there is a political dimension or a serious point of law to be considered.
Also family courts
Search engine on your phone is a big help.
10:32 that was the witness box, the defendant is probably seated where the camera is positioned for these videos at the other end of the courtroom - that's a fairly common layout in UK courts.
🏴 👍🏼
Wigs were sometimes used to protect the identity of the judge.
Yes, they dropped the glasses and big red nose last century.
In the UK, the terms 'felony' and 'misdemeanor' were abolished by the Criminal Law Act of 1967. The act also created the new categories of 'arrestable' and 'non-arrestable' offences (which have now been abolished). The categories that still exist are 'indictable offences' (can only be tried in a Crown Court), summary offences (can only be tried in a Magistrates Court) and triable either way offences (which can be tried in either).
All trials start at Magistrates Court, however, serious cases, for example, Murder, are sent to Crown Court without any evidence being heard or even without the presence of the Defendant. Magistrates are ordinary people who have been selected by a special panel. People can apply themselves or, more likely, be nominated by advisory committees. They are expected to give their own time and are only paid expenses. They undergo training. They are addressed as Sir/Madam or Your Worship(s).The Clerk of the Court will advise Defendants to obtain advice from a Solicitor. There is always a free one available in the Court building. If the Defendant wishes to defend his/her self, the Clerk will only offer advice on Points of Law. In Crown Court there are two types of judges, a Circuit Judge who is addressed as My Lord/My Lady , usually shortened to M,Lord. The other is a Recorder who is addressed as Your Honour. The Circuit Judge only sits on Criminal cases and can be recognised by the red sash on his gown and (sometimes) a slightly different wig. In the video the judge is a Circuit Judge.
What you're saying about Magistrates Court is essentially right but it's important to note that The Clerk of the Court does have legal training and basically runs the court. They ensure that the court is run to the rules of the law.
I was a Court Clerk for the Probation Service. and it was my job to prepare all the needed paperwork to be in place for each days hearings in the Court., for many years. Also was trained to use a special computer system which covered has to find "absconders who tried t avoid appearing when and where they where required to.
A Magistrate is basically a local Karen that believes they are better than everyone else generally with a holier than thou attitude
Corrupt system
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone. This today is usually expressed as "It is better that 10 men go free than for one innocent man to be found Guilty".
Common Law - A type of legal system, often synonymous with"English common law," which is the system of England and Wales in the UK, and is also in force in approximately 80 countries formerly part of or influenced by the former British
There is actually Magna Carter Laws says It promised the protection of church rights, protection from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and, most importantly, limitations on taxation and other feudal payments to the Crown, with certain forms of feudal taxation requiring baronial consent.
Magna Carta
No new taxes unless a common counsel agrees.
All free men have the right to justice and a fair trial with a jury.
The Monarch doesn't have absolute power. The Law is above all men and applies to everyone equally.
All free citizens can own and inherit property.
Widows who own property don't have to remarry.
Magna Carta was issued in June (1215) and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was NOT above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.
Also from Magna Carta Law, that guarantees Barons their ancient rights: No new taxes unless a common counsel agrees. All free men have the right to justice and a fair trial with a jury.