Introduction
The hierarchy of courts describes the arrangement in order of authority and influence in the judicial system. The arrangement determines the decisions that are binding to various classes of courts in the system. Courts that are ranked higher in the hierarchy have the ultimate authority to make decisions that are binding to all the courts. The high ranking courts have the privilege to make rulings that can be used to set precedent for related and similar cases (Martin 2005). This study assesses the hierarchy of the court system in England and Wales. It also seeks to determine how the common law doctrine of binding precedent interacts with the hierarchy.
The Hierarchy of Courts
The hierarchy of the court system is arranged in an organized manner that comprises of different classes of courts. At the very top of the hierarchy lies the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the privilege to administer the final appeal in the legal structure. The members of the Supreme Court include the senior judges and the lords of law. The next court after this is the court of appeal, which is divided into subcategories. The two divisions are criminal and civil branches (Sinclair 2008). The criminal section is headed by the chief justice while the civil division is headed by the rolls master. Cases that are criminal in nature are tried in the crown court and the magistrate court, while cases that are civil in nature are tried in county court or high court (Elliott 2008).
The high court is further divided into different categories depending on the nature of the cases that are handled by each section. For instance, the family section of the high court deals with issues such as divorce, marriages, and family related disputes. The Queen’s Bench section deals with cases that are general in nature such as contract issues and libels. The third section of the high court is the chancery section, which deals with issues that touch on company cases such as probate and bankruptcy (White 2006).
The Common Law and Binding Precedents
The above mentioned structure is guided by the common law doctrine of common binding precedent. The creation of laws of precedents which binds the structure of the court system is derived from the principle of a common ratio which guides the judges when making their rulings. In this case, the decision made by the previous judges according to the principles of Obiter Dictum and Ratio Decidendi determine the ruling of a particular case (Elliott 2008). The two principles may not determine the fate of a case before the court but may be useful in cases that are related in nature (Berland 2011).
The common law in England and Wales was derived from the principle of precedent. The principle was used as a guideline in determining the fate of cases according to the binding element. The judges in various courts used the principles of precedents as a guideline in court proceedings. The common laws in the current court system structure are established by the judges through their decisions depending on the hierarchy of the court. The relationship between the courts in the hierarchy determines the extent to which a ruling made in one court is bound to another court. In this regard, the appellate court has the privilege to follow its own decisions. However, each court within the structure is bound to follow the binding agreements of the court above it. The binding element also determines the roles of judges within the judicial system (Drewry & Louis 2007).
Precedents have the advantages of promoting flexibility, certainty, and ensuring efficiency. Precedents also promote consistency in decisions. However, this principle tends to foster the element of rigidity where courts are compelled to follow the decisions made in previous court rulings. In such a case, the courts have to follow the previous decisions regardless of the level of agreement. Binding precedents have the element of authority where every court has the mandatory obligation to abide by the decisions of the court above. The persuasive precedent lacks the element of authority and cannot be relied on by the judges to make some rulings (MacCormick 2004).
Binding precedents under the common law are guided by the doctrines set under the binding precedents. The principles tend to create a lot of sophistication regarding court decisions. For instance, the principles ensure that a court has the mandatory obligation to determine the fate of the case that is presented to the court and can only make rulings on similar or related cases (Postema 2002). The court can only use the previous case as a binding precedent if it has assessed all the issues of the case. In such a situation, the counselors in the case are forced to understand the fact that the law is not confined to the rules of the case (Martin 2005). The rules of the case can be determined during the court proceedings. In some cases, the appellate court may change its own rulings especially in situations where the decision made may result to negative impacts of the case. However, this is not a common practice especially in circumstances where the principles of binding precedents are properly applied in the case. Proper application of the principles enables the judges to develop an accurate analysis of the situation (Michael 2009).
The element of the law of precedents also requires that the superior courts should adopt the principle of verticality in their rulings where every court relies on the rulings of the superior courts to determine a proper ruling. The other element that is applied when assessing the issue of precedents under the common law is the issue of horizontality (Berland 2011). In this principle, courts that are of the same level such as the different branches of the appellate court can use the decisions made by the judges of the same level. The other issue that is considered when assessing the element of binding precedents under the common law is scope of the case. The facts and the scope of the case before the court have to be evaluated before the principle of the precedents can be applied (Postema 2002). However, some cases that are presided by a panel of judges may result to a divided opinion, which may lead to a dissenting opinion among the judges. In such a case, the principle of consensus may be applied to achieve uniformity. The judges may be forced to vote on the issues of the case and the results are determined by the majority vote (Hayward 2006). The source of dissenting opinion among the judges may result from the sources of the case such as law reviews, traditions, and restatements (Drewry & Louis 2007).
Reference List
Berland, D 2011, ‘Note stopping the pendulum: Why Stare Decisis should constrain the court from further modification of the search incident to arrest exception’, University of Illinois Law Review, vol. 3. no. 2, pp. 45-48.
Drewry, G & Louis, B 2007, The Court of Appeal: Suzanne Full brook, Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland.
Elliott, C 2008, English legal system, London, Pearson Longman.
Hayward, A 2006, ‘The per Curiam Opinion of Steel: Buckley v. Valeo as Super precedent?’ Cato Supreme Court Review, vol. 7. no. 12, pp. 240-245.
MacCormick, D 2004, Legal reasoning and legal theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Martin, J 2005, The English legal system, Hodder Arnold, London.
Michael, H 2009, Profit and the practice of law: What has happened to the legal profession? University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Postema, G 2002, Philosophy of the Common Law: Oxford handbook of jurisprudence and philosophy of law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sinclair, M 2008, ‘Precedent, Super-Precedent’, George Mason Law Review vol. 12. no. 2, pp. 176-179.
White, J 2006, analogical reasoning in a companion to the philosophy of law and legal theory, Patterson Blackwell, Oxford.