Judicial Branch
Different types of cases get held in different types of courts. All criminal courts will start at the Magistrates Court, for example, although more serious criminal matters will be sent to the Crown Court. Appeals from the Crown Court will go to the High Court, then to the Court of Appeal, and perhaps even to the Supreme Court.
The Magistrates Court is one of the minor courts, and all criminal cases start here. This court isn't only for criminals, it's also for some civil matters, mainly focusing on family issues. There is no jury at a Magistrates' Court, but cases are heard by a District Judge or by a group of three magistrates'. A magistrate looks after a less serious case, for example, petty crime. Magistrates get chosen due to their mature behavior, good citizenship, and unbiased judgement. Being a magistrate isn't a job, and they don't get paid.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal for the whole of the UK. Originally, the Supreme Court was a part of the House of Lords. Because the government wanted the Legislative and Judicial branches separate, the Supreme Court was created in 2009. The Supreme Court consists of 12 judges who are known as the "Justices of the Supreme Court".These judges also serve as the highest court of appeal for many countries in the Commonwealth and other British territories. For a case to be heard at this court, it has had to have passed through all of the other courts shown above. The layout of the Supreme Court is very different from what you would expect. There isn't a witness box, there isn't a jury box and there isn't even a press box. Anybody can come in and watch the case. All members of this court sit round a table,where the judges sit on one side, and the representatives and other lawyers sit on the other side. As this is the highest court for appeals, the judges don't hear witnesses, don't decide who is telling the truth. They get given a set of facts on a case by a party, and they inform those parties of the law.
In 2011, a family was ripped apart. According to the mother of the family, one of her boys fell down at home and banged his right ear, which became bruised. The mother immediately took the child to the hospital, who then received a check up and was sent home. The exact same incident happened a week later, and when they went back to the hospital, the mother says "I could tell by the way they looked and treated me they thought I'd done it." She was then sent to court and was hoping for a chance to explain herself, but in return, she got only a fifteen minute hearing. The Judge assigned to this case, Judge James Orrell listened to the doctors evidence (that the bruising could be caused by pinching) and ended the trial shortly after. He didn't allow the mother or the son, who was old enough and capable to speak for himself the chance to talk. Immediately after the hearing, social services took the son before he said goodbye to his mother. The mother was disgusted, and she took this case to the High Court, where the Judge said that he was 'aghast' at the previous Judges' decision. She was immediately reunited with her son.
This case makes us wonder if some of the Judges are really doing all that they can to preserve justice throughout the UK. Whether or not the mother did harm her child, or if she was really innocent like she said she was, everybody is equal to a fair hearing, which this family did not get.
This case makes us wonder if some of the Judges are really doing all that they can to preserve justice throughout the UK. Whether or not the mother did harm her child, or if she was really innocent like she said she was, everybody is equal to a fair hearing, which this family did not get.