There are two characteristics each respective judge, jury or magistrate must take into account depending on the type of case. ‘In a criminal case the state prosecution must argue that the ‘burden of proof’ is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. In a civil case the arbitrator must consider that the burden of proof is the ‘balance of probabilities’.
You cannot be arrested or imprisoned for a civil matter, but you can for a criminal matter. This is why the burden of proof is different. In civil court the plaintiff is required to prove his case “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that the judge or jury believes that it is more likely than not that you were wronged. In criminal court the burden is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means the jury needs to be quite sure before they find someone guilty.
Most Acts of Parliament constitute public law and when an individual breaks such a law it is, more-often-than-not, defined as criminal. The main purpose of criminal law is to give the state the power to protect the public from harm by punishing individuals whose actions threaten the social order of things. One aspect of criminal law is strict liability; the actual offense of breaking the law. Once it is determined that a criminal law has been broken, the state will then proceed to impose a sentence against the defendant such as imprisonment, probation, or a fine payable to the state.
All criminal offenses are either indictable, summary or ‘triable either way’ offences. Indictable offences are the more serious, which must be tried in the Crown court by a judge and jury. Summary offences are less serious, tried by magistrates. The ‘either way category’ must enter a ‘mode of trial’, which is held in the Magistrates Court, before a decision is made on the seriousness of the case and to which court it must progress to.
In a magistrates court lay magistrates hear most cases normally in groups of three. Lay magistrates are part time, unpaid and do not need a legal qualification, however they are assisted by a legally qualified clerk who may advise if requested. Some, but very few cases may be heard by District |Judges. District judges are legally qualified, full time and paid, they sit alone and hear the longer and more difficult cases. Only summary offences such as motor offences and minor assaults are dealt with in the magistrate's court. Apart from the exception of triable either way offences which, can then be dealt with in either two courts of trial.
The majority of criminal business is dealt with by magistrates and, despite ideology and triviality, they deal with serious cases. There is also a Youth Court within the Magistrates Court which deals with the offences of minors where a detention, training order or a custodial sentence can be issued. The Magistrates court is fundamentally a criminal court but also deals with matters falling under The Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates Court Act 1978, i.e. granting personal licenses and small civil debts.
In a civil court the parties are heard by a single judge who decides, based on the amount of compensation sought and the nature of the case, which track to direct the claim. The small claims track hears cases seeking no more than five thousand pounds and personal injury claims of up to one thousand pounds. This is a relatively low-cost and speedy process and is usually presided over by a district judge. ‘Fast track’ cases hear claims between five and fifteen thousand pounds and personal injury claims between one and fifteen thousand pounds. These cases can be heard by a district or a circuit judge. This procedure aims to limit the time taken to come to a resolution. The third is ‘multi track’ which hears complex cases and claims over fifteen thousand pounds and are generally heard in the County Court. Claims above fifty thousand pounds are heard in the High Court.
Civil cases in the County Court deal with various issues with relation to large debt, land disputes and complex family issues and cases less than fifteen thousand pounds always being here under the fast track. The Small Claims Court can be found within the County Court, which deals with small compensation claims in civil disputes. An integrated theory of the civil justice system encompasses not merely formal legal rules and state courts, but also the numerous others kinds of dispute resolution mechanisms which exist to resolve civil disputes.
Within the High Court there are three administrative divisions: the Queens Bench Division (QBD), The Chancery Division and the Family Division; each dealing with its own particular issues. These are ‘first instance’ courts but also hear appeals as divisional courts from lower courts as does the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal (particularly from the High Court) which is presided over by Lord Justices of Appeal.
The Supreme Court (formally the House of Lords) is at the top of the court hierarchy (although there may be certain cases that involve an aspect of European Law in which case the European court of Justice must be consulted). Decisions are made here by ‘Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a court of ‘last resort’, an appellate one, and is resided over by Law Lords. It hears cases from the Court of Appeal on all civil matters. Complex cases may ‘leapfrog’ to the Supreme Court from the High Court.
Criminal cases can be heard in the High Court (Administrative Court of the QBD) where cases are heard ‘by way of case stated’ by High Court Judges. The Court of Appeal may hear appeals from the crown court from both the defendant and the prosecution. Decisions in The Court of Appeal are made by ‘Lord Justices of Appeal’. The House of Lords hears appeals from the Criminal Division or from the administrative court of the QBD via a ‘leapfrog’ procedure. Such appeals are heard on points of the law. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council grants appeals if there has been a considerable injustice served or if it is deemed that the accused has been denied a fair trial. The European Court of Justice may be consulted to give rulings on matters of European law.
The European Court of Human Rights hears cases concerning breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights, which was signed in 1951 by a number of European countries, including the UK.
In conclusion; criminal law primarily deals with the rehabilitation or punishment for wrongs, and ends in fines or imprisonment. Civil law is about righting a wrong and has the primary purpose of compensation. Lord Irvine distinguishes from the two in the following quote:
“The criminal justice system is there to help protect us from crime, and to ensure that criminals are punished. The civil justice system is there to help people dispute their wrongs fairly and peacefully.”
Bibliography
Bus, L.R. (2009), ‘Chitty on Contracts’, 30(4), 91
Comms, L. (2009), ‘Outsourcing Contracts and Remedies’, 14(1), 20-23
Gillespie, A. (2009), ‘The English Legal System’, 2nd Ed, O.U.P.
Partington, M. (2008) ‘An Introduction to the English Legal System’, 4th Ed, O.U.P.
Per Lord Irvine of Lairg. Gillespie, A. (2009), ‘The English Legal System’, p.273
