eng legal system

• Judicial independence

  Government cannot remove judges arbitrarily or because it disagrees with a ruling
• Judicial independence


  • Security of tenure - judges serve until age 70
  • Superior judges can only be removed by a petition by both Houses of Parliament
  • Inferior judges can only be dismissed for incapacity or misconduct
• Judicial independence

  • Contributes to the long-term stability of the UK
  • The judiciary remains a consistent institution even when government changes, upholding the law and preventing abrupt shifts in legal norms
• Immunity from suit


  • Judges cannot be sued for defamation when commenting on a defendant's character when passing sentence
  • Judges cannot be prosecuted for making an error "in good faith" when a defendant was detained unlawfully
• Judicial independence

  Allows judges to exercise integrity and express themselves honestly in court, improving the quality of justice
• Separation of powers

  • The judicial branch is separated from the legislative and executive branches, making political pressure less likely
  • Judges are required to determine if government has acted 'ultra vires-beyond its powers in Judicial Review cases
• Separation of powers

  Allows the public to trust the judiciary will hold the executive to account, as seen in successful reviews such as the Gina Miller case in 2016
• Independence from case

  • Judges must declare if they have any connection to or have any interest in the case and decline to hear it
  • Reduces the chances of mistrials and verdicts being overturned
• Independence from case

  Ensures justice is likely to be fair and impartial, strengthening the rule of the law where all people are equal before the law
• Advantages of using court to resolve civil disputes

  • Certainty and predictability
  • Impartiality and fairness
  • Procedural efficiency
  • Wide range of civil disputes handled
• UK's legal framework

  • Well-established body of law, including common law principles, statutory laws, and precedents
  • Allows parties to understand their legal rights and obligations clearly
  • Provides confidence in the legal process
• UK courts


  • Reputation for impartiality and fairness
  • Independent, professional judiciary, free from external influences
  • Disputes resolved on the merits of the case rather than the parties' influence, wealth, or power
  • Maintains the integrity of the legal system
• UK courts' procedural efficiency


  • Well-established rules and procedures
  • Streamline the legal process
  • Reduce delays
  • Promote timely resolutions
  • Small-Claims, Fast-Track and Multi-track process
  • Case management system prioritises cases based on complexity and urgency
  • Makes the litigation process more cost-effective and manageable for all parties
• UK courts' ability to handle civil disputes

  • Wide range of civil disputes, from contract and property issues to personal injury and employment disputes
  • Specialised courts such as the Chancery and Family divisions of the High Court
  • High profile and value cases like Vardy v Rooney (2020) heard in the Queen's Bench Division
  • Disputes heard and resolved by experts in the relevant field
• Trial by jury

  A system where a group of citizens are selected to decide on the guilt or innocence of a defendant in a criminal trial
• Disadvantages of using trial by jury

  • Lack of public confidence
  • Inconsistent quality of jurors
  • Vulnerability to media influence
  • Lack of explanation for verdicts
• Juries reach perverse decisions


  Undermines trust in the legal system
• Examples of perverse jury decisions


  • R v Kranild (1996)
  • R v Bramwell et al (2021) "Shell Six"
• In the above cases, the jury acquitted despite the judge explaining there was "no defence at law"
• Compulsory jury service


  Undermines confidence in the legal system
• Juries are susceptible to tampering and intimidation


  Undermines confidence in the legal system
• Example of trial collapsing multiple times


  • R v Twomey and others (2009)
• The repeated collapse of the trial resulted in extra costs to the taxpayer and further delay in the criminal justice system
• Inconsistent quality of jurors


  • Selection based on electoral register is likely to be unrepresentative
  • Not all jurors will be intellectually capable of understanding complex evidence
• Example of jurors misunderstanding their role


  • R v Huhne & Pryce (2013)
• The jurors in R v Huhne & Pryce (2013) had fundamentally misunderstood their role, asking basic questions after 15 hours of deliberation
• Juries are more vulnerable to media influence


  • Compared to professional judiciary that have undergone training and often have decades of legal experience
• Example of appeal on grounds of lack of fair trial


  • R v West [1996]
• Developments in social media and 24-hour news have made jurors unable to resist researching cases and defendants online, undermining the integrity of the trial
• Juries do not give explanations for their decisions


  • This can lead to questions being raised about how verdicts are reached
• Example of jurors getting drunk and consulting a Ouija board


  • R vs Young (1995)
• Without a reason for the decision, there is no way of knowing if the jurors fully understood the case and have reached a fair decision, undermining the right to a fair trial
• Arbitration


  A consensual process where both parties agree to submit their dispute to a neutral arbitrator or panel of arbitrators for resolution
• Arbitration


  • The arbitrator possesses relevant experience in the field of the dispute, ensuring informed decision-making
  • Agreements for arbitration are usually documented in writing within the initial contract between the parties, commonly referred to as a Scott v Avery clause
  • The initial agreement may designate an arbitrator or establish a method for their selection
  • Parties agree upon the procedure for dispute resolution, ranging from 'paper' arbitration to formal court-like hearings
  • Hearings are conducted in private, and legal representation is not always necessary, reducing expenses and potential confrontations
  • The arbitrator's decision, known as an award, is final and binding on the parties and can be enforced in court if necessary
  • An award may be challenged only in cases of serious procedural irregularity or on points of law, ensuring the integrity and enforceability of the arbitration process
• Conciliation


  Akin to mediation, but with a more proactive role for the conciliator, who engages in discussions with both parties and proposes grounds for compromise or settlement
• Conciliation


  • It is particularly suitable for disputes involving access to goods and services by disabled individuals, cases of alleged discrimination, certain employment disputes, and selected family law matters within the Family Division of the High Court
  • Despite the conciliator's active involvement, the parties still maintain control over the process and retain the right to withdraw at any stage
  • Similar to mediation, conciliation relies on both parties agreeing to a final compromise, although resolution may not always be achieved, especially if one or both parties remain steadfast in their positions
  • ACAS serves as a prominent example of a conciliation service, intervening in employment disputes to facilitate settlements before claims are escalated to employment tribunals, and also mediating in industrial disputes to broker compromises between conflicting parties
  • Through its proactive approach and focus on facilitating agreements, conciliation offers a constructive avenue for resolving disputes and minimizing the need for formal legal proceedings
• Conditional Fee Arrangements (CFAs)

  A means of financing legal representation in personal injury claims, where the client only pays the solicitor's fees if the case is successful
• CFAs are not permissible in family or criminal cases
• CFAs

  • Offer a financial safeguard for clients
  • Include a cap or maximum limit on the solicitor's charges, ensuring cost predictability for the client
  • Solicitors cannot claim any costs if the case is lost, so they generally only agree CFAs if they believe the claim has a high probability of success, often above 75% chance
  • Commonly incorporate a 'success fee' clause, entitling the solicitor to an additional fee if the client prevails, usually a percentage of the compensation recovered, reflecting the complexity and risk of the claim
  • If the client emerges victorious, they cannot recover the success fee from the opposing party in addition to their costs
  • The loser must usually pay the winner's legal costs, meaning CFAs often include a requirement for the client to secure an 'after the event' insurance policy, covering the costs of the opposing party in the event of an unfavourable outcome, mitigating financial risk for the client
• CFAs and the insurance provision, provide access to justice allowing individuals to pursue civil claims with reduced financial risks