Are court and tribunals in the English legal system now Essay

Are homage and tribunals in the English legal system now indistinguishable in wholly important respects - Essay ExampleThe content of the law here include things like whitlow offences and civil wrongs. Here the feature between a crime and civil wrong cannot be stated as depending upon what is done because what is done may be the same in each case. The true distinction lies therefore not in the nature of the wrongful act but in the legal consequences that follow it. The instances above thus are addressed, heard and dogged at very different places which bring us to the court system of the English legal system. This court system is divided or subdivided into either the criminal court system which includes the sovereign Court, the court of appeal, crown court, magistrates, high court and Privy Council. The other division is the civil court system which also includes the Supreme Court, the court of appeal, the county court, the magistrates, the high court and the tribunals (Baker, 200 9, p. 29). This brings us to our main subject of the courts and tribunals. From the oxford learners dictionary the meaning of a court is basically a person or eubstance having judicial authority to hear and resolve disputes in civil, criminal, ecclesiastical or military cases. On the other hand a tribunal is a posing or a group of proceedings how end goal is to establish and deliver a judgment on a specific issue much(prenominal) as a tribunal to resolve an election dispute which in itself is under the guidance and rules of the court system. The Court and the Tribunal In origin, these tribunals are knowing as alternatives to what is believed to be the artificial formality of courts of law, and the supposed ignorance of the ordinary judiciary of specialized information regarding particular economic and social relationships. The ordinary man or woman is expected to be able to operate the process without benefit of counsel or solicitors (Blackstone, 2003). It soon begins to appear, however, that the total absence of formality can be a straightforward passport to injustice. Moreover, in rent cases, and cases of unfair dismissal, the landlord or employer could hardly be expected to spend long days in court instead of managing his own business, and therefore might reasonably be expected to employ a professional advocate. The first characteristic led to a general extension of the role of the ordinary courts in their supervisory role of subordinate tribunals, the second to an equally general demand for the extension (Bailey, et al. 2007, p. 68). The second to an equally widespread demand for the extension of legal aid to tribunals originally instituted with the intention of keeping the lawyers out. One thing, however, has emerged from the development of the tribunal system since the war, and this is the marked preference shown by fantan and the public for a tribunal consisting of a lawyer in the chair sitting with two seasoned and experienced lay members over tri al by judge alone, or trial before a judge and civil jury (Elliott & Quinn, 2011, p. 38). First and foremost, in a court the purpose of the case is ordinarily to get the culprit of the offence i.e. the wrongdoer and the appropriate punishment to be administered like in instances where a robbery has occurred and the person responsible has been arrested by the persons touch on which in this case might be the police or even the public. This is somehow different from a tribunal whose real and intended purpose is to