The Judiciary (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
The Judiciary
Overview
The judiciary refers to all the different types of judges working within the English legal system. Judges operate across both civil and criminal courts, though those at higher levels of the court hierarchy have the flexibility to sit in either jurisdiction depending on where their expertise is needed.
The primary function of judges is to adjudicate – this means they decide on matters of law. In criminal cases, they rule on whether the law has been broken, and in civil cases, they resolve disputes between parties. Their role is fundamental to ensuring justice is delivered fairly and consistently across the legal system.
The ability of senior judges to sit in either civil or criminal courts provides valuable flexibility in the legal system, allowing expertise to be directed where it is most needed at any given time.
Types of judge and their roles
Judges in England and Wales are classified into two main categories:
Inferior judges work in the Crown Court and below. These include Circuit Judges, Recorders, and District Judges who handle cases at the lower levels of the court structure.
Superior judges serve in the High Court and above. This includes High Court Judges, Lord Justices of Appeal, and Justices of the Supreme Court.
The distinction between inferior and superior judges matters because it affects how judges are appointed, what powers they hold, and the procedures required for their removal from office.
Judges by court level
Supreme Court
- Justices of the Supreme Court are the most senior judges in the country
- The court is led by the President of the Supreme Court
- They hear appeals on points of law in both civil and criminal cases
- Their decisions set binding precedents for all lower courts
Court of Appeal
- Lord Justices of Appeal sit in this court
- The Criminal Division is headed by the Lord Chief Justice
- The Civil Division is headed by the Master of the Rolls
- In criminal cases, they hear appeals against conviction and/or sentence
- In civil cases, they hear appeals about findings of liability and/or the amount awarded in damages
The Court of Appeal is divided into two separate divisions, each with its own leadership and specific jurisdiction, reflecting the fundamental division between criminal and civil law in the English legal system.
High Court
- Judges are known as High Court Judges or Puisne Judges (pronounced "puny")
- The court is divided into three divisions, each with its own head:
- Chancery Division: Chancellor of the High Court
- Family Division: President of the Family Division
- Queen's Bench Division: President of the Queen's Bench Division
- These judges hear large-value, first-instance civil cases where they decide on liability and appropriate remedies
- They also hear appeals from lower courts in both civil and criminal matters
Crown Court
- For the most serious criminal cases, High Court Judges may sit in the Crown Court
- Circuit Judges handle most Crown Court cases
- Recorders are part-time judges who assist with the workload
- Crown Court judges hear complex and serious criminal cases alongside a jury
- They also hear appeals from Magistrates' Courts
Understanding the Judge's Role in Jury Trials
In jury trials, there is a crucial division of responsibility:
- The judge decides points of law and directs the jury on legal matters
- The jury determines guilt
- After conviction, judges pass appropriate sentences
This separation ensures that legal expertise guides the process while community values determine the verdict.
County Court
- Circuit Judges and Recorders (part-time) hear most County Court cases
- District Judges handle small claims track cases
- These judges hear civil cases and make decisions on liability and remedies
Magistrates' Court
- District Judges (Magistrates' Court) are professional, legally qualified judges
- They hear low to medium-level criminal cases
- They decide both the verdict and pass sentences
- They also handle some civil matters, including family work and licensing appeals
Tribunals
- Tribunal Judges are specialists in particular areas of law
- The tribunal system is headed by the Senior President of Tribunals
- They hear cases on specific civil issues, such as employment disputes, immigration appeals, and tax matters
This will be assessed in Paper 1.
Independence of the judiciary
Judicial independence is a cornerstone principle of the English legal system. It ensures that judges can make decisions based solely on the law and evidence before them, without interference from external sources. This independence protects the integrity of the legal system and safeguards individual rights.
Security of tenure
Several long-established principles protect judges from improper removal or government control:
- Judges must not be under the control of the government (known as the Executive)
- Judges cannot be removed simply because a new government comes to power
- Individual judges are protected from criticism in parliamentary debates
- The mechanisms for judicial removal and the length of judicial service are clearly established in law
Age and Service Requirements:
- There is no minimum age for judicial appointment
- However, judges must generally be able to serve for a "reasonable length of service", which in practice means at least five years
- Judges must retire by age 70 (though some may work until 75 in exceptional circumstances)
Removal from office:
Judges hold their position "during good behaviour", meaning they can only be removed for misconduct or incapacity.
For High Court Judges and Court of Appeal Judges, removal requires a petition to the Crown following an address presented to both Houses of Parliament. This procedure comes from the Act of Settlement 1701, which created crucial protections for judicial independence.
For Supreme Court Judges, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 established a similar but slightly updated process. These judges may appear before a tribunal before any parliamentary motion for their removal is tabled, providing an additional layer of procedural protection.
Circuit Judges and District Judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor on grounds of misconduct or incapacity, but this power can only be exercised if the Lord Chief Justice agrees. This requirement for joint decision-making prevents arbitrary removal.
Immunity from suit
Judges are granted immunity from suit – a protection established in the case of Sirros v Moore (1975). This means they cannot be sued or prosecuted for any actions they take while properly performing their judicial duties.
This immunity exists on grounds of public policy. If judges could be sued for their decisions, they might make choices based on fear of personal liability rather than on the law and evidence. This would undermine the entire justice system.
However, immunity from suit does not mean judges are completely unaccountable. Complaints can still be raised about a judge's behaviour, language, or conduct. If such complaints are serious enough, they can lead to disciplinary action or even removal from office through the procedures described above.
Independence from the Executive
The Executive refers to the UK's democratically elected government. A fundamental principle of the English legal system is that the judiciary must remain separate from government control. This principle is known as the separation of powers doctrine.
In court, judges must be completely independent from external pressures to ensure defendants receive fair trials. The public must have confidence that judges are impartial and free from political bias or influence.
What judges must ignore:
Sources of Pressure Judges Must Resist:
Judges must resist and ignore pressure from:
- The Executive (government) – Judges must not allow themselves to be manoeuvred into making pro-government decisions or forced to rule against those who oppose government policies
- Parliament (the legislature) – While judges must apply Acts of Parliament, they cannot be pressured by MPs or Lords in their decision-making
- Other judges – Judges must make independent decisions, except where bound by the doctrine of precedent
- Pressure groups – Campaigning organizations cannot influence judicial decisions
- Personal interests – Judges must set aside their own opinions, beliefs, and self-interest when deciding cases. The case of Re Pinochet (1998) illustrated the importance of this principle
- The media – Public or press opinion cannot sway judicial decision-making
Reasons for and advantages of judicial independence
Judicial independence serves several crucial purposes in the legal system:
Ensuring fair verdicts: Independence means that verdicts and decisions are based purely on the evidence presented and the law as it stands, without any external influence distorting the outcome.
Protecting jury trials: In criminal cases heard by jury, independence ensures that juries reach verdicts based on facts alone, not on pressure from government or other sources.
Delivering impartial justice: The system can only function properly if all parties believe they will receive fair and impartial treatment, regardless of who they are or who they are up against.
Protecting citizens' rights: An independent judiciary acts as a safeguard, protecting citizens and their rights against unlawful actions by government, state-run agencies, or any person or organization attempting to infringe or remove those rights. This is particularly important in cases involving judicial review of government decisions.
Methods for achieving judicial independence
Several practical measures protect judicial independence:
Immunity from prosecution: Judges have immunity from being prosecuted for any acts they perform while carrying out their judicial function. This allows them to make bold but legally correct decisions without fear of criminal charges.
Immunity from defamation claims: Judges cannot be sued for defamation for anything they say about anyone involved in a court case. This means they can freely comment on defendants, witnesses, or parties without fear of being sued, enabling them to perform their role without self-censorship.
Appeals process: Any errors made by a judge can be corrected through the appeals system rather than requiring the judge to face punishment. This encourages judges to make decisions they believe are correct without fear of personal consequences if they prove to be mistaken.
Independent salary setting: Judges' salaries and pension rights are not set by the Executive but by independent bodies. This removes any possibility of the government using financial pressure to influence judicial decisions.
Key Points to Remember:
-
The judiciary encompasses all judges across the English legal system, divided into inferior judges (Crown Court and below) and superior judges (High Court and above)
-
Judges perform different roles depending on their court: Supreme Court Justices hear appeals on points of law, while Crown Court judges try serious criminal cases with juries and pass sentences
-
Security of tenure means judges hold office "during good behaviour" and can only be removed through specific statutory procedures, protecting them from arbitrary dismissal
-
Immunity from suit (established in Sirros v Moore 1975) protects judges from legal action for decisions made while properly performing their judicial duties
-
Judicial independence from the Executive, Parliament, the media, and other external pressures is essential to ensuring fair trials, protecting citizens' rights, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system