As a UK lawyer one of the things that has dismayed me in the US is the politicisation of the Judicary . When I was doing court work I had no idea of the political views of the judge and I did not want to know . I just wanted a fair hearing and generally got one . In England judicial appointments are made by a board completely independent of politicians thankfully . To me the idea that the court might be politically infected is ridiculous and alarming .
Looking at some of the current cases involving Trump, it's amazing how the system was allowed to get in to the state it is. How does a case involving a political figure have credibility when the judge has an affiliation that is openly antagonistic? As an English layperson, the verdict by Engoron for example sounds fine, but it has a credibility issue if people want to claim he was unduly harsh because he is a Democrat. There just appears to be conflicts of interest, even if they aren't present in the verdict
Agreed. Not a lawyer in any way, but I've always liked our judicious system, at least compared to the US, that Judges are entirely separate from any political affiliation.
@@gooner_duke2756 I agree with both I feel it goes more to them being a republic and I’m trying in the history not be like the system we have in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth where the king is head of state judges are to upload the Lord of the Crown, not the law of the Republic this is why all judges are appointed by the king on the advice of a panel and not by parliament. It really truly allows judges to just be impossible from the political situation even when judges sat in the House of Lords they sat crossbenchers. Or law lords not as party members
@@tjd18 I can kind of see what you're getting at, but you've misunderstood. The Monarch doesn't appoint judges and hasn't done for a very long time. The law/judges started to become separate from the head of state in the 12th century. By the 15th century/1400s Judges and the law were separate from the government entirely. Today and for a number of years Judges are appointed by the 'Independent Judicial Appointments Commission'. This is entirely separate from the government. One of the strengths of England and the UK is that the 'law of the land' has been separate and as objective as possible, without prejudice, politics, etc. Within the law 'the crown' (where you have the crown versus "Joe Bloggs") is symbolic/representative of the law of the land, not the monarch directly themselves. Yes, the US system evolved/was created within a different context agreed. Although many of UK/US laws are actually quite similar and their system is based upon English common law. But their judicial structure is quite different.
It's the US process for jury selection that baffles me. In the US both the defence and the prosecution side get to question prospective juries. I've done jury service three times in the UK and I know jury members are requested via mail to attend court on a given date and the names are put into a large bowl and selected totally at random to serve on a jury but anyone not selected could still be selected for another case. If you are selected for jury service and find out that you know any of the main players i.e. defendent, witnesses etc. involved in the case being tried you must make that known to a court official and you will more than likely be excused. At no time does the legal representation on either side play any part in jury selection. Regards the wearing of wigs, cloaks etc. in our system. I remember asking that question of a barrister and he said he looked on it as wearing a disguise and what he was saying in court was not his own personal opinion and he was not speaking for himself but he was applying the law.
Up to that point in history where it diverted, the laws were pretty much identical, and from then on diverted to suit. It's the same here, the laws now are much changed to suit today's living standard in both countries, and both countries still have some of their same laws that remain pretty much the same now as they were back n the day. And some that are pretty much identical to laws in both countries. Most British settled, and British influenced countries, of mainly English language and other British languages have very similar laws to each other. Not identical, but similar enough that you can trace their laws back to the same origins. There are so many more laws needed now because there are so many more ways to be a criminal compared to 300 years ago.
@@Burglar-King The legal system in Scotland is very different, though. Scottish law has certain elements of civil law in it, unlike England and Wales, which is pretty much just common law.
One interesting point, is that british judges dont have a gavel, but everyone thinks they do because its in all the american movies and trials, and gets written into British shows because its dramatic and expected.
The larger vessel on the Judge's desk is a 'JUG' of water !!! The camera angle is looking directly at the 'spout' side. Look carefully and you can also make out the handle on the other side. 🤓
@@marchernandez4596 The funny thing when in America is they get water from a faucet; yet understand if you ask for a glass of tap water !? Always makes me laugh...🤔😎🤣🤣🤣
The biggest difference between US and UK courts is that there is a distinct line between the Executive and the Judiciary and that Judges are not political appointees.
Though UK judges are not political appointees, they are mostly elderly males, and as such, may not have views in line with public consensus, so a person might find that the outcome of a trial may depend on which judge presides over his case. To that extent, there is a similarity with the US. What is different though, is that (a) religion is a very mild and low key affair in general in the UK compared to the hotbed that it is in the US, and (b) the racial issues that plague the US are less significant here. You can see this reflected in for example the fact that the current UK PM is of Indian heritage and a Hindu, but no one bats an eyelid.
Interesting fact is that the black cap was only officially retired in 1998. Up until that point there were still 3 offences on the books that could have a death sentance imposed although nobody has been charged with any of them since ww2.... The 1968 date given for the abolition of the death penalty was only the date that murder was no longer a capital offence and that the last person was hung (for murder)
@dasy2k1 The death penalty for murder was suspended (how appropriate) in 1966, not 1986. A little slip of memory, perhaps? You're right about the three offences that still carried the death penalty, though. High Treason, Arson in a Naval Dockyard, and Piracy. In the days when warships were made of wood, arson in a naval dockyard was regarded, in effect, as treason.
In the UK, there are no grand juries to decide if there is a case to answer in the initial phase of a prosecution. The full case is presented in front of a trial jury. The onus however is on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to ensure that the case against the defendant has a reasonable prospect of conviction prior to the trial. If the judge decides that there are fundamental flaws in the prosecution's case using legal precedent, then he/she can order the jury to find the defendant not guilty.
This is more important than it appears. Whichever side wins, both sides can see that there has been a proper trial. Also the wigs emphasize that the people wearing them are doing their jobs, and are not personally involved, even if your side loses.
Barristers's wigs are generally made of horsehair. My son, a junior called to the Inner Temple a few years ago, told me a vegan colleague of his had a special one made of cotton. Wigs are to symbolise that barristers and judges are not representing themselves at court, but represent the position they hold.
Yes Ryan, the reason why the court procedure feels so similar is because it is copied directly from the British system. Over the centuries there have been changes and anomalies brought into the US system largely due to its separation from the Crown, hence the many differences.
@@neuralwarp The Irish legal systems (NI and ROI) are very similar to that of England and Wales. As I understand it the Scottish system is based on Roman law while the rest are based on Common law. The latter also applies in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other formerly British colonies. In ROI they have largely given up wearing wigs.
Barristers - the ones with wigs addressing the judge - have exclusive rights to appear in the higher courts: the High Court which deals with civil matters like debt, personal injury compensation and contracts, and the Crown Court which sits with a jury and deals with more serious crimes (the High Court only sits with a jury in defamation cases). Solicitors are the people you go to see first when you have any legal problem. Obviously they will specialise in particular types of work. They can appear in some of the lower courts, like the Magistrates Court that deals with motoring offences or the Small Claims court that does what it says on the tin,, or in domestic eviction and straightforward family law cases. But for anything that will go to the High Court or Crown Court they have to get a specialist barrister to do the court stuff and appear in court. They then attend court and take notes as the case goes on, literally sitting behind the barrister. Very senior expert barristers ca be appointed Queen's Counsel or King's Counsel and deal with the most important cases. Yup, it's complicated. The dressing up is I think retained largely to put the fear of God into the litigants themselves and make them take it seriously.
I did jury service a couple of years ago. We get sworn in on your holy book if you’re religious but as I’m atheist, I made a secular declaration. Also, as the defendant was only 17, the judge and barristers chose not to wear their wigs. I think the US courts are based in the English judicial system.
Lawyer is a generic term. Effectively a barrister has rights of audience in court where a solicitor doesn’t. Certain exemptions to this in the lowest courts. If you have a legal issue in the UK you go to a solicitor. A solicitor may then engage a barrister for further help and advice, especially if the case may end up in the court
A better way of looking at it is this. You might use a solicitor for a police interview, or to seek legal advice. If you are charged with an offence, the solicitor will instruct a barrister to act on your behalf, and represent you in court, their role is usually to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and challenge points of law being made, sometimes citing case law, this is where legal arguments become long and drawn out and often days can go by with a single argument on a point of law which may decide which way the court hearing goes. I work in UK law enforcement and I used to interview arrested prisoners and speak with solictors on a regular basis, mainly legal reps (who are often NOT solicitors and it's only a short 5 week or so course). Some of the people I did meet were actual solicitors however.
On the subject of barrister. A couple of weeks ago I actually saw a barista serve a barrister in a coffee shop, just across the road from Nottingham Crown Court. I knew she was a barrister because she had one of those cloth bags with the name of her "chambers" on it.
The video depicts the English and Welsh crown court system. The court systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different again. There are also the High Court, the Court of Appeal and lower courts In England and Wales - County Court, Magistrates' Court and Tribunals Service - for more minor offences. The UK also now has a Supreme Court. which adjudicates on constitutional matters (although there is no formal written Constitution) and is also the highest appellant court in England and Wales. There is also the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for all UK immigration cases and the Military Court Service. The system is complicated to say the least. Barristers and solicitors (both are trained legal practitioners with different roles and skills) are not directly paid for by the government. A defendant must fund their own defence, unless they are entitled to receive Legal Aid. Criminal prosecutions in England and Wales are funded by the Crown Prosecution Service, which in turn is financed by HM Treasury. Disclaimer: My comment may be imprecise, so please don't sue me.
Yep. Although the SC is also the highest appellant court for Scotland and Northern Ireland too (except Scottish criminal cases (unless on Human rights or constitutional grounds)).
There's also the Scottish Children's Reporter where Children's Panels deal in a more informal way with those under 18 who need to be dealt with by the legal system, whether as victims or perpetrators. A hearing is held if a child: Suffers from lack of parental care. Is falling into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger. Is beyond the control of their parent/carer (relevant person). The child, or another child in the same household, has been the victim of an offence such as sexual abuse, assault or neglect. Is a member of the same household as a person who has offended against a child or young person. Has failed to attend school without reasonable excuse. Has committed an offence. Has abused solvents, or misused drugs or alcohol. The majority of children are there because of parental neglect and their future needs to be decided.
The single biggest difference: High Court judges are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the lord chancellor. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Judicial Appointments Commission has removed the appointment of judges from the overtly political arena. High Court judges, like other judges, are appointed on open competition. (Wikipedia)
I came here JUST to see if anyone else commented about Ryan NOT knowing what a jug or pitcher looks like... 😂😂😂 (TBH, he often knows nothing about lots of things 😅 !)
In Australia, “Criminal matters: Barristers traditionally wear robes and wigs in the District Court except on chambers matters. Barristers do not wear a wig if the judge appears without a wig at the outset. Ceremonial occasions: barristers wear robes and wigs; in the case of silk, full bottomed wigs are worn.”
Same in the English courts. Generally, in civil cases, barristers will not wear wigs but this is entirely at the discretion of the judge(s). Robes and “bands” are still worn in the higher courts (that is in civil appeals), but neither robes or wigs are worn in the courts at first instance.
@@pathopewell1814Ryan is not the presenter, he’s reacting to the video, comparing his understanding of US courts to UK courts. Each country uses different titles for things. They don’t call lawyers barristers in the US, they call them attorneys.
"Crown Court" was a long-running UK TV court drama series based on realistic cases and circumstances. There are many episodes on YT. It is worth looking at if you like to see more details and action.
Wearing wigs in the UK courts dates back to the 17th century. During this time, wigs were not exclusive to the legal profession but were a fashionable accessory among the British elite. Judges began adopting wigs as a symbol of their social status and authority.
Well british common law is still the law of the land in the usa. Juat heavily modified but still forms the base of america law so many standards etc and procedures and laws themselves are the same or similar Scotland and Northern Ireland don't exist let's be honest here. They pretend they exist and that they matter but they don't so yes british common law. Ps Northern Ireland is not Britain its the uk. Scotland is just an area of poor England where we put the poor and the inbred. Tbeh might pretend to be another country but theh are english so again british common law. It wasn't English common law at the time back rhe it was british common law. Scotland having its own laws is a relatively new thing in british history. And only cos we allowed them. English common law is british common law as everyone had to follow bebglish laws back rhen, none of this nonsense giving Scotland its own pretend government and letting it choose some of its own laws. And british common law like I say is English common law. Its called commonxlaw because all our colobys have to accept it a d Scotland has to accept it. Yes it can cha ge some laws but it can't do what it wants it has to beg England to change things. 😉 so british common law =e glish common law
@@cyberash3000 No. He’s right. It’s English but if you want to be specific it’s England and Wales. Americans usually mix up British and English and think they’re one and the same but it’s not. Scotland and NI have separate laws and legal systems
@lanabmc3519 that's what I meant you blithering idiots. I am brotish I don't count Scotland or Northern Ireland as Britain as they don't matter and their existence is pointless. I'm from lancashire. Britain to me is England and Wales
@@cyberash3000 You’re not. Paul Booth is. It’s English law you’re referring to. There is no British law. English law is different from Scottish and northern Irish laws. There is no such thing as British law.
The wigs date back to a time in history when all Gentlemen wore wigs. They have been kept largely through tradition however they are a reminder to everyone in the Court of the seriousness and solemness of the situation, highlighting the importance of the 3 Lawyers in the room: Prosecution, Defense and Judge. It is the Crown who prosecutes criminals, we have both lower and upper courts including magistrates who deal with lower crimes. We also have family courts which deal exclusively with cases involving Minors. The Lawyers who ply their trade in Court are called Barristers because they have sat and passed the Bar Exam. The “bar” in bar exam or bar association is not an acronym. The origin of the term bar derives from the physical layout of a courtroom. A wood rail separates court observers from the judge, jury, lawyers, and parties in a courtroom. This wooden bar has come to symbolize the law.
In England and Wales about 94% of criminal cases go to the Magistrates Court. Three Justices hear these cases (also some civil cases) and are advised on the law by a Legal Advisor (once called the Clerk). They are not required to be qualified in the law but are citizens selected, trained and regularly assessed. Appeals from their courts are heard in the Crown Court with a Judge and two Justices. It is unpaid with allowances for travel, food & drink and loss of income. I was a Justice, now retired.
In NZ we have a very similar court system to the UK and, like the UK have evolved over time to meet changing social environments. For example, a unanimous decision by the jury is not required. This is to minimise the chances of a hung jury where, say, one person has been bribed or intimidated or simply, for personal reasons, religious or otherwise, takes an immovable position on guilt or innocence not based on the law or the evidence presented. Another is the "double jeopardy" situation where a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. With the advanced of science, DNA being an obvious one, strong evidence may be available that was not available at the time of the trial or proof may be found of tampering with the jury, perjury or any other matter which, if available at the time of the first trial would have most likely have lead to a different result. Such a retrial needs to be initiated on a strong basis and is used with caution.
I worked for the probation service for many years so spent a lot of time in and around courts. Witnesses swear according to their faith or, if they have no religion, they can affirm. There are a whole range of bodies that can prosecute - Department of Health and Social Security, Civil Aviation Authority, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals etc etc - but the main body responsible for prosecution is the Crown Prosecution Service, which either uses its own staff to prosecute or will employ lawyers on a case by case basis. Generally a unanimous decision is required from a jury but if they cannot decide, the judge may allow a majority verdict, i.e. one that ten members agree upon. The video is really just about the Crown Courts in England and Wales, rather than the whole UK, as Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems,
The judge thinks it rather gauche to chug his water straight from the jug, so he has a small glass into which he can pour a smaller amount, and drink this with more delicacy. Once he’s drunk that and if he wants any more, he can return to the jug and refill his glass… Hope this helps… (they wear wigs, btw, because they did, didn’t they, in the past?…)
There was a UK version of Law & Order that was pretty cool, and it showed a lot about the UK criminal court system. In the US we have "State's attorney" or the "US Attorney" who prosecute and they have a CROWN prosecutor, because obviously the government of the UK receives its authority from the Crown (in theory).
@@MaisiewupppI would expect that is the case because in Australia we largely follow the British system and yes counsel can each challenge THREE jurors without restriction. In criminal proceedings they get an extra peremptory challenge without restriction. My daughter did jury duty recently and made it to the empaneling stage. She was challenged and dismissed thankfully!
@@MaisiewupppNo, the right to peremptorily challenge a juror has been removed. The first time I did jury service ( 30+ years ago) it still existed but when I did jury service (5 years ago) it had been removed. In both cases, the judge advised the jury members that they must recuse themselves if they knew the defendant(s) or had knowledge of the case beyond what Joe Public would know. You were also told that you must tell the judge if you knew any of the witnesses.
Barristers are almost all in self-employment. They are instructed by solicitors for the crown or the accused. So a criminal barrister may appear for either. Prosecution solicitors are typically employed by the Crown Prosecution Service (although other government departments and local authorities may prosecute in some cases.) There are also private prosecutions but they are rare.
The basic British formulae for trial has been adopted by many countries of the world, merely because of the British Empire, and the fact that it works pretty well in most cases.
My line of work here. I sat where the Prosecution solicitor sits in this vid, and as such, I am the only crown/government employee. Judges & barristers are self employed (tho' some barristers are employed by my company which was the Crown Prosecution service). We are civil servants. Once upon a time in the Crown defendants would have been flanked by 2 prison officers, reduced over time to 1. Prison officers are also civil servants. Nowadays, the dock is manned by private security companies. Yes they still wear horse hair wigs. One summer in court a judge allowed everyone to remove the wigs (it was so hot) & I noticed how the barristers argued more with the judge as they did when wearing them. Coincidence probably, but I did wonder
Same here in Australia, except for very complex/high profile, the Department of Public Prosecution may engage outside Counsel (aka external barrister)with specialist knowledge on the domain of the matter.
Ryan... 'Derby' is pronounced "Darby" _not_ _Derby_ ...and you _have_ been told this several times _before_ so *Please* stop acting like Tyler, and just *read* your comments and _try_ to _remember_ what you're _being_ _told_ 🥺 (f🦆's sake!!) ?!! 🤔🏴❤️🖖
I have done two weeks of Jury Service (& was chosen to be a Juror on two cases - regarding theft - in that time, the first in an old Court building, the second in a new Court building) ... It was some time in the early 1980's,probably around 1983, or 4, I don't recall the actual time-frame but it was definitely well before 11th October 1986!! ... I have never appeared as a witness in Court.
I believe it to be a form of disguise so they are not recognised outside of court. Some British Colonies, particularly smaller islands used to have very serious cases such as murder tried by judges from the UK as it would be difficult to have good security for the judge in a small community.. They would visit specifically to do a particular trial. Serious offences would result in a circuit charge.
The UK-Judiciary is still in use in many of its (former) territories. Even the opening of the legal year in HongKong still retained all of its former UK traditions (including the scepter, attire, wigs, bagpipes and opening statements in English).
Interesting that you didn't mention that the witnesses are STANDING. In most criminal cases, witnesses are sworn in and then seated in the witness box. Also, in cases I've seen, the jury foreman will deliver their verdict in writing; the bailiff gives it to the judge, who reviews it, and it is then returned to the jury foreman who will then read it aloud.
@@ougadougou9 -- and you didn't have to let the judge see it before you got to read it? Okay, cool. It's been a couple decades since I was anywhere near a court room, and maybe every court is run differently. Thanks
Interesting video. I worked for criminal defence solicitors and remember the first time I attended the Old Bailey for a murder case. I was so hyped up I could barely concentrate and take notes 😅
That was a really good video - I've never seen that before. Incidentally, part of a judge's regalia is a square of black cloth called the black cap. Although we have long since abolished the death penalty, traditionally, the judge would wear it when passing sentence of death. Although still carried by judges, it's obviously no longer used.
I also want to point out that as was said that is the procedure in England and Wales, Scotland has its own legal system and always has since before the Act of Union there are NO CROWN COURTS in Scotland! Our Highest Criminal Court is the High Court of Justiciary sitting with one judge and jury hearing the most serious criminal cases, the High Court of Justiciary also acts as the final Criminal Court of Appeal in Scotland when it sits with either 2 or 3 judges depending on the nature of business! I believe an appeal purely on sentence sits with 2 senior judges whereas in the case of a Full Appeal against conviction, it sits with 3 senior judges! The court below that in Scotland is the Sheriff Court which hears middle range criminal matters and when sitting with a Jury the Sheriff can impose a maximum sentence of 5 years I believe BUT if he is sitting on his own with No Jury the maximum sentence he/she can pass is a year Below that we have the Justice Of the Peace Courts (Formerly the District Courts) which hears of less serious matters!
IIRC a few years ago barristers were asked if they wanted to continue wearing wigs and they voted to do so. Over 30 years ago I had my one experience in court, as a jury member. It looked very similar to that video, except the defence solicitor was sitting behind the defence barrister and they sometimes talked. There were also several burly policemen standing near the defendant after he leapt over the dock and tried to get to a witness, his ex-girlfriend who he was accused of assaulting. There were two charges, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. The judge said that it was up to us to decide whether a broken nose would count as GBH but indicated that he didn't think so. Unlike the US, in the UK it is an offence for a jury member to discuss what happened in the jury room even after the case is over, so I can only mention what happened in the courtroom. I was the foreman and annouced that we had found him guilty of ABH but not GBH. Then various drug charges the defendant was waiting sentencing on were mentioned and some suspended sentences. With them running concurrently he was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison. But it was now clear why the prosecution had tried for the more serious charge. A TV comedy that was written by a lawyer and presents various aspects of the UK legal system in a fun way is Rumpole - th-cam.com/play/PLaW84zjbaYZLLeYpcZkxulRohrZ7zDdEG.html
In England, juries always have 12 people. In Scotland, civil cases have juries of 12 people, criminal cases have juries of 15 people. In Scotland, a civil case is between plaintiff and defendant. In a criminal case, the person in the dock is called the accused.
Yes they wear wigs and in England some wear crowns. And titles lords and ladies . Its called a class system. You have a similar thing in the US where the law is fair and applies to all rigidly except the rich and powerful who are above the law , just like here in the UK.
There is a sense of theatre to UK courts. That is a good th ing. In the US one might be looking at a church hallmeeting. The theatre makes it all very real for those in the dock.
Just to note there are three legal systems in the United Kingdom The Law of England and Wales The Law of Scotland and the Law of Northern Ireland. This showed the process for a court under the law of England and Wales. For me knowledge of the crown courts came from a 1970s series called Crown Court where the jury were ordinary members of the public and the actors presented a case to them. I think it was on daily at lunchtime and it was very interesting. The theme tune was Janacek's Sinfonetta: th-cam.com/video/-uHLMW8_ez8/w-d-xo.html The system has been reviewed since the seventies and some of the language has changed.
Oh Ryan, your Court system is based on ours. Your Constitution, your whole governmental system is based on ours. Even your 'freedoms' of free speech, freedom of the press etc are based on ours. Please consider watching THE TRUE HISTORY OF FREEDOM NEVER TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS/THOMAS SOWELL' and it will give you more information. There was a time the population of the USA was 80% British - so that's why its like SO similar to ours. Also your Founding Fathers used to sit in our Houses of Parliament and other of our Institutions and take notes.
9:14 The jury elect a 'foreman' to act as leader and spokesperson. They generally count the jury votes and try and get resolve a verdict when it is 50/50.
Our Australian system is the same as the British. Obviously we were a British colony and many of our laws and our parliamentary system is the same as the UK. The way we look at it, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, it has worked perfectly for us. And our judges are NEVER appointed for their political views, that would be a complete scandal in this country. They are appointed on merit, which is how it should always be. Politics and the judiciary should never be intertwined, it creates the possibility of political corruption, as we have seen in the US!
This is an outline of the Court proceedings , the wigs are a tradition certainly but make the key characters easily identifiable . There are big differences from the US. regarding Jury selection and Reporting . In Scotland there is a third verdict of ' not proven ' .
There are 3 wigs used in court. Flat judge's wig, curly barrister's, and solicitor's. King's Counsel (KC, senior lawyers) wear long wigs on ceremonial occasions.
The U.K. does not have the “Grand Jury” system pre trial to decide on adequacy of the evidence - instead the “acquittal” option from the judge as described.
The law used to be that it had to be unanimous. However, owing to concerns that this made it easy for gangsters to get to one of the jurors the law was changed. If the jury has not reached a decision after a reasonable time, the judge may state that he will accept a verdict supported by 10 of the 12.
As far as I am aware a Barrister may not chose the cases that are placed in front of him / her, whilst a Solicitor / Lawyer can. Ie, the Barrister must take on the cases presented to him / her as the appointed Prosecutor or Defence Lawyer. `The Courtroom has been the place of some teriffic dramas over the years based in the British Isles and upon British Law. I`m thinking in terms of Rumpole of the Baily, Kavanagh, QC.... Judge John Deed, etc ! There are also some fine dramas based in `courtrooms` of past generations, ie set in Victorian times, for example. Naturally there has also been some fantastic dramas made by US TV Production Companies based, of course, in US `Courts.` In one particular film I liked Cher played the part of a Lawyer who was forced to defend ( as a Barrister would be forced here ) a mute homeless chap ( played by Leam Neeson ? ) against the crime of Murder. I think the film was called "Suspect." The Prosecutor over here is, I believe, The Crown. Just as in the `States The Prosecutor will ( I assume ) be The State - in accusations of State Law violations and The Unted States iin the casee of Federal Offences. I could, of course, be completely wrong - on all counts.
Jury of 12 goes back to Magna Carta, AFAIK, when the nobles decided they didn't want the king deciding their guilt or innocence, they wanted the right to a jury of their peers, and along with that comes the assumption of 'innocent unless proven guilty' as opposed to 'guilty unless proven innocent'. This is common in the Anglosphere, spreading out from Britain, and kept because it was good, something to be proud of. Not sure it is the same elsewhere, eg in the Francosphere, where I think the system goes back to whatever Napoleon decided on.
I was in both the Magistrates and the Crown Court today. So coming back yo see this is just 😂 Your not sat at the back alone. You have 2 security people sat with you. They nice make sure you have water tissues etc , but ultimately will transport you to prison if that's your sentence. Behind you at the back is also a door to the stairs , that takes you to the holding cells for anyone that has come to court from prison.
In the US, them jury foreperson is asked, “How do you find?” The jury foreperson announces their verdict. It’s handed to the Judge who approves or disapproves.
The only things I saw different are the wigs, and some of the terminology. Great video Ryan. Can't wait for the video's that you do that go deeper into the British court system. Peace (My friend, did you really not recognize a water pitcher?)
Ryan, all serious cases are examined first by our CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) who decide if there is enough of a case to go before courts to examine the evidence and the outcome.
We have two courts, Magistrates and Crown. The former may hear cases where the punishment carries a maximum of 6 months in prison (Occasionally cases are heard and then sent to crown court for sentencing) The latter hears more serious cases and represents the monarch or crown. Interestingly the protection of the law could be removed from an individual or group, (This does not happen now) this was a precarious state of affairs since they would have no legal recourse for theft, assault, injury or even death... these people were known as outlaws.
The Barristers are Lawyers, often privately hired by the Defendant, while the Prosecution Barristers are employed by the state. The wigs & costumes are just a hang over from the 18th century, when nearly all gentlemen wore wigs. In the Courts it just accentuates the official nature of their work. The American system is just more or less a continuation of the legal system of Britain in Colonial days. The layout of the court room varies a little from place to place, some being very old buildings & some newer. The defendants lawyers do not sit with & confer with them during the trial, but consult in breaks outside of the room, if permitted by the Judge. Solicitors are Lawyers who's offices you may find in any town. They deal privately with all legal matters, such as property buying, divorces, neighbour disputes, & will be the go-to lawyer if a person is dealing with criminal matters. They do not generally themselves prosecute or defend criminal cases, but accompany the defendant in court to advise & guide them through the procedures. Barristers generally belong to one of the Inns of Court, ancient associations of Lawyers in the City of London. Each will specialise is particular types of cases & trials, so a Solicitor will ask one of these to conduct the case, while the Crown (prosecution) will ask & instruct another to Prosecute the case. All Legal matters go first to a Magistrates Court. These are regional or local & consist of locally appointed Magistrates, usually 3 in number , hearing a case & if it is quite minor, coming to a decision on whether a full trial is needed. The Defendant, through their Solicitor, can ask that the case bypass the Magistrates & be sent to the Crown Court instead, which is where it goes to the sort of set up with Judge & Jury that is a full criminal Court. Any serious criminal case will automatically by sent to the Crown Court by the Magistrates. In the UK it is often permitted for a conclusion to be made by a majority jury verdict, but that is up to the particular Judge trying the case, who may require a unanimous vote. Jury vetting does not occur as it seems to in the American system, there are very limited grounds for dismissing a Juror, & they are not questioned in court the way that they seem to be in the US. The point is that the Jurors & defendants are not known to each other, & the defendant cannot be told of the circumstances of any juror, so that no intimidation can take place, & a more favourable jury cannot be manipulated by either side in the case. This is a bit strange because originally, in Medieval times the members of a local Jury were chosen from the defendants neighbours, who would have been aware of any disputes, bad blood between families, personal rivalries & gossip. This was meant to ensure a fair hearing. It was bad luck on a defendant if he/she was the most unpopular person in the area, or came from the wrong family, very good luck if one was among the locals best regarded people, or from the right family. You can see why neutrality was eventually introduced, to ensure which cases were taken to different areas where the jurors were unlikely to know the defendants circumstances etc.
You were looking at what is known as a Crown Court; but there are different courts, and the processes are quite different. For example, simple crimes such as not paying your TV licence, low level traffic offences, drunk and disorderly etc are dealt with by a Magistrates Court; here, you can have a solicitor if you wish or if your (vehicle) insurance provides for a legal representative. Such cases are usually a fine of some degree, but there is no jury. For much more serious crimes, the Crown Court is the next one up the line. In the USA you have a lawyer who represents your full time in court. In the UK, our lawyer is known as a solicitor. He will handle your case, but he does not present your case to the Judge, he hands it over to a qualified barrister who is usually referred to as "The learned Counsel/lor the Defence/Prosecution." These Counsellors are basically the only people along with the judge/s who wear wigs, the wig signifying their status. These are lawyers at the top of their game, although there is a higher level again, known as KC or QC (King's/Queen's Councillor) which places them one the same level as the Judge. The UK also has the High Court/Supreme Court. You're confusing the reference to application to dismiss by saying that's usually done before a court appearance. The decision on that rests on the evidence - which is the whole purpose of having a court hear it!!! What you really mean - I assume - is a pre-court Hearing. In the UK, the Hearing only determines the level of the charges. In court, those charges might be reduced to a lesser charge, dependng entirely on the evidence. The term "Reasonable Doubt" only applies to Jury cases, and not to Magistrates. Example: "I already paid the money Your Honour." "Where's your receipt or other evidence to verify that/" "I lost it Your Honour." The qustion is whether the accused has or has not paid the money, but with no evidence to show, there is no such thing as "Reasonable Doubt." On ther basis of the evidence produced, the verdict will be one of guilt as charged! Virtually everything in the UK comes under the Judiciary - even the government. Here, the word used is "Crown" because the judges are not placed into authority by politicians or government, there are appointed by the Monarchy - a huge distinction from most other countries. No UK Government can appoint or fire a Judge or Barrister, so politics is kept out of the Judiciary....and the reaon why the national court symbol is blindfolded! Finally, as a Christian-based system going back centuries, the Holy Bible has always been the standard for telling the truth. However, in today's very mixed society, the court will apply whichever standard of an Oath according to each defendent's religious belief.
In England & Wales, all criminal cases are heard first in a Magistrates Court and only about 10% are forwarded for trial at a higher court. A Magistrates Court has two or usually three magistrates, or a single judge - but no jury.
A witness can be sworn in on any holy book of their choice or no book at all, The oath statement will be whatever format the witness is comfortable with. Most religions (and no religion) are covered, even Jedis.
The standard is beyond reasonable doubt but the typical jury direction is that you must be sure or certain. That’s because reasonable doubt is difficult for the layman to parse. It is always the law that it is not for the defendant to show their innocence but for the crown to prove their guilt.
The Judge is the imbodiment of the King or Qyeen. You cannot sit by them unless they request it. This comes from the time when the King would tour the country to give out justice.
DERBY is pronounced DARBY ! UK barristers are self employed or working from chambers. That " big glass " is a JUG !! In the UK the jury are not allowed to tell anyone their decision until they are asked by the judge.
@@peterharridge8565 You're not allowed to discuss what was said in the jury room at any time during or after the trial. Not ever, to anyone, even family.
@@TestGearJunkie. Remind me what I said then, the previous comment was 5 months ago so 5 months ago I guess. But TH-cam not showing my comment. Maybe though I was referring to US system as this video is to find out about the UK system by an American (so comparing). In the US though we see jurors tell us about what their view is in the media about cases where a verdict has been declared, often. In the UK this never happens. That said I have been asked by family and friends (colleagues at work) about the cases that I was a juror on. I guess that is true with every juror. Every Juror in the UK knows these rules but often friends do not so they ask. To pretend that every Juror follows these rules esp with close family is I think delusion. It doesn't come out because the close family doesn't say to others hopefully. But of course to cases that are not in the public eye it does no harm. No one knows who you are talking about.
The wigs are because 700 years ago you would go in front of the Monarch (hence "Court"). This became delegated to Judges, but technically the King can take to the bench (and become a Judge) - they still pardon (on recommendation). Would be a scandal that the Royal Family would survive, though! They are also there to depersonalise the whole thing. They show the force of law and the seriousness of where you are. It is basically wearing a suit to a job interview on stilts.
I read somewhere (I don't know how true it is) Technically in the UK you can ask for a trial before the King/Queen but... If they approve it, then you are completely at the mercy of the King/Queen, The king is not bound by laws, he can give the verdict he wants and there is no appeal against the verdict, whatever it may be That's probably why no one wants to try their luck in front of the King
Here in the mid 1990's, our New Zealand Chief Justice, decided that wigs did not have to be worn in court. Today, they might be worn only for a ceremonial situation. The purpose was to bring a sense of solemnise to the occasion and to clearly identify the authority of those with the responsibility to conduct the court hearing. It used to be mandatory in the High Court prior to this. The barrister for the prosecution in a criminal case is usually employed by the government and acting for the Crown. The barrister for the defense is only paid by the government in a case that requires legal aide. This means the person charged has no ability to engage and pay for a legal representative. If the person has money or assets, they will have to pay themselves, either at the time or later if they sell their property. The government will attach a claim against their property for the legal fees owing. The wigs were not required in family court or district court for less serious offenses. Great video, Ryan. Thank you. Kind regards from Rae in New Zealand
Prosecution barrister is equivalent to the US ADA(government). The defence barrister ( private)is engaged for a price by the defendant, but if he cant afford one legal aid will be awarded so that he will have representation. The wig and robes are effectively the uniform worn in crown court . It is simply historic tradition for hundreds of years but it does serve the purpose of acting as a differentiator between keys officials in the court(barristers and judge) and everyone else, making it very clear to the layman who is who.
Barristers are the only practitioners licensed to plead a case in front of a judge on most instances. Though there are some exceptional cases where solicitors can stand. Defence barristers are 'instructed' by solicitors on behalf of the clients. The cost of mounting a defence may be waived if the case fails but prosecution AND defence costs could be levelled if the judge considers that the defendent pleaded a no-hope case. Barristers generally work for Chambers and are expensive 'guns for hire' in court. Solicitors do most of the mundane legal work such as less serious offences before magistrates, wills, probate and house buying.
Another major difference between US and UK courts is the jury. In the UK the jury is appointed by the court, the defence and prosecution have no say in the appointment of the jury.
Jury decisions are required to be unanimous. If a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision the judge may accept a majority decision and set the acceptable majority (11-1. 10-2) Although the judge can say they will only accept a unanimous decision If the jury cannot reach a decision within the acceptable guideline then there will be a retrial with a new jury
The reason that men in the United Kingdom and the United States started to wear wigs, was syphilis which ravaged the USA and Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries. As the fashion for long hair on men died out, men no longer wore wigs to cover up that they had the disease. However the courts being hide bound and extremely unwilling to change fashion, continued to wear wigs, and it became very much the standard uniform of the British court system. In many European courts they too have a far more formal dress than is seen in the US, and can involve gowns, sashes and distinctive head gear. This is especially true of judges, who even in the US system in the higher courts still wear gowns/black robes.
We have retained it becasue it ensures a degree of anonymity for the barristers and like a uniform doesn't distract the jury with considerations of how good the barristers suit or hair is.
The video failed to clarify what a solicitor is. A solicitor is also a lawyer who traditionally wasn't an advocate but now there are also solicitor advocates.
I vaguely seem to recall that in Australia years ago the Family Court which deals with child custody etc re-introduced wigs for judges because emotional parents were not showing proper respect for judges who were not wearing wigs and robes in an attempt to make the court more informal.
English juries have 12 jurors and decide unanimously. Exceptions apply. Scottish juries have 15 jurors and decide by majority. Civil juries are .. weird.
Each level of judge wears a distinctive robe. You saw a criminal circuit judge. Supreme court judges only wear their black and gold robes for ceremonies.
The gown and wigs anonymises the barristers. Under the gown barristers tend to wear morning dress again as a sort of uniform. So again flashy dressing does not become a distraction. Wigs sometimes get dispensed with in hot weather. Judges usually gets appointed from barristers. A senior barrister is known as a KC Kings Council.
@@DeepThought9999 when they get elevated to KC it is called taking silk, ie they a silk gown. a KC will always have a junior barrister with them to assist and learn.
They used to put a black wig on when someone was sentence to death there is no death sentence in uk that is a container of water and a glass the person give their verdict is called forman of the jury
Have been in a murder jury at the Old Baily. Personal think the wigs and tradition is all part of the solemn and serious nature of what is happening. I like tradition. Small glass and big glass? Carafe and glass dude. CPS makes the determination to bring a case - then before the Jury the Prosecution lays out its case - and Judge can make a determination is there has been enough evidence submitted - in front of the Jury.
A big difference with the USA is we don't have voir dire and jury selection: the court selects jury members before the trial & a member is only replaced if they know the defendant or witnesses. For long trials alternates may be selected in case 1 of the original 12 has to leave because they are ill or suffer a bereavement of a close relative.
2:00 Not really! The reason is this isn't the London Fashion Week but a court of justice. Plain and uniform clothing doesn't take away the focus from the legal stuff being discussed.
They are public "lawyers" .The Prosecution ( CPS ) are a government service .The defence team are Private firms who hold and are paid under government contract .The client chooses their solicitor from a number of availabel firms , the defence SOLICITOR applies for Legal Aid on behalf of the client .The Defence SOLICITOR prepares the case . The defence SOLICITOR selects the barrister from Chambers,that barrister is paid seperately under government contract. Legal Aid is available to all who qualify on meritsand means . If you dont qualify on means then the defence team is paid for privately .However , the majority of defendant's appearing in the Crown Court are on LegalAid. Neither , side are political appointees and both sides are audited indepently to ensure quality and cost effectiveness . The Judge is also not a political appointee . The wigs and gowns are retaiined like a uniform ,it makes both sides look the same rather than distract with how they are dressed or how bad their hair is. If I seem a tad snarky , defence solicitors dont just take notes in Court we run the show for the defence!!
Very interesting video and reaction. I’m also curious about why they wear wigs. In my country, we stopped having a jury. We have two judges and five regular people deciding on a case. I think it’s better. A jury with no knowledge of the law can judge on emotions. BTW; I like the robes the barristers and judge are wearing 😊
Depending on the court, the more serious matter, Judges and Barristers, were robes and headpieces. A solicitor operates advising clients on criminal and non-criminal matters. Barristers are lawyers who have specialised court advocates on both sides. In a complex civil court matter, there may be barristers for each person/organisation. The gowns and wigs remind everybody that Judges and Barristers are separate from the person. For court matters around horrendous cases, separation is good for everyone. Until around the early 1980s, our High Court could still be appealable to the Privy Council in the UK. From that point on, the highest court for Australian matters, often revolving the interplay to the case and our Constitution.
As a UK lawyer one of the things that has dismayed me in the US is the politicisation of the Judicary . When I was doing court work I had no idea of the political views of the judge and I did not want to know . I just wanted a fair hearing and generally got one . In England judicial appointments are made by a board completely independent of politicians thankfully . To me the idea that the court might be politically infected is ridiculous and alarming .
Looking at some of the current cases involving Trump, it's amazing how the system was allowed to get in to the state it is. How does a case involving a political figure have credibility when the judge has an affiliation that is openly antagonistic? As an English layperson, the verdict by Engoron for example sounds fine, but it has a credibility issue if people want to claim he was unduly harsh because he is a Democrat. There just appears to be conflicts of interest, even if they aren't present in the verdict
Agreed. Not a lawyer in any way, but I've always liked our judicious system, at least compared to the US, that Judges are entirely separate from any political affiliation.
@@gooner_duke2756 I agree with both I feel it goes more to them being a republic and I’m trying in the history not be like the system we have in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth where the king is head of state judges are to upload the Lord of the Crown, not the law of the Republic this is why all judges are appointed by the king on the advice of a panel and not by parliament. It really truly allows judges to just be impossible from the political situation even when judges sat in the House of Lords they sat crossbenchers. Or law lords not as party members
@@tjd18 I can kind of see what you're getting at, but you've misunderstood. The Monarch doesn't appoint judges and hasn't done for a very long time. The law/judges started to become separate from the head of state in the 12th century. By the 15th century/1400s Judges and the law were separate from the government entirely.
Today and for a number of years Judges are appointed by the 'Independent Judicial Appointments Commission'. This is entirely separate from the government. One of the strengths of England and the UK is that the 'law of the land' has been separate and as objective as possible, without prejudice, politics, etc.
Within the law 'the crown' (where you have the crown versus "Joe Bloggs") is symbolic/representative of the law of the land, not the monarch directly themselves.
Yes, the US system evolved/was created within a different context agreed. Although many of UK/US laws are actually quite similar and their system is based upon English common law. But their judicial structure is quite different.
It's the US process for jury selection that baffles me. In the US both the defence and the prosecution side get to question prospective juries. I've done jury service three times in the UK and I know jury members are requested via mail to attend court on a given date and the names are put into a large bowl and selected totally at random to serve on a jury but anyone not selected could still be selected for another case. If you are selected for jury service and find out that you know any of the main players i.e. defendent, witnesses etc. involved in the case being tried you must make that known to a court official and you will more than likely be excused. At no time does the legal representation on either side play any part in jury selection.
Regards the wearing of wigs, cloaks etc. in our system. I remember asking that question of a barrister and he said he looked on it as wearing a disguise and what he was saying in court was not his own personal opinion and he was not speaking for himself but he was applying the law.
You, the US, did not copy the UK court system - you started out with it as a British colony and amended it to suit your purposes.
Up to that point in history where it diverted, the laws were pretty much identical, and from then on diverted to suit.
It's the same here, the laws now are much changed to suit today's living standard in both countries, and both countries still have some of their same laws that remain pretty much the same now as they were back n the day. And some that are pretty much identical to laws in both countries.
Most British settled, and British influenced countries, of mainly English language and other British languages have very similar laws to each other. Not identical, but similar enough that you can trace their laws back to the same origins. There are so many more laws needed now because there are so many more ways to be a criminal compared to 300 years ago.
@@JacknVictorYes, not much cyber crime back in the early 1700s but then that Scotsman went and invented the telephone and look what that led to. 😀
"Beyond reasonable doubt" COMES from British law :) After the war of independence they didn't want to re-invent the wheel.
From English law. Scotland copied it.
@@neuralwarpyes as part of the U.K. we became the UNITED KINGDOM
@@Burglar-King The legal system in Scotland is very different, though. Scottish law has certain elements of civil law in it, unlike England and Wales, which is pretty much just common law.
One interesting point, is that british judges dont have a gavel, but everyone thinks they do because its in all the american movies and trials, and gets written into British shows because its dramatic and expected.
The larger vessel on the Judge's desk is a 'JUG' of water !!! The camera angle is looking directly at the 'spout' side. Look carefully and you can also make out the handle on the other side. 🤓
It's so american to confuse something as big as a jar with something like a glass 😂
I know right, Americans don’t have jugs!! Well they do but instead of wadder they are filled with silicone- this guy is spiced out of his melon
Yes, or a pitcher of water, as Americans would say.
@@marchernandez4596
The funny thing when in America is they get water from a faucet; yet understand if you ask for a glass of tap water !? Always makes me laugh...🤔😎🤣🤣🤣
The biggest difference between US and UK courts is that there is a distinct line between the Executive and the Judiciary and that Judges are not political appointees.
Good point given the current situation in the USA.
Yes, that's what I find abhorrent about the US system. There is an incestuous relationship between politicians and the judiciary.
This bears repeating in capital letters.
Though UK judges are not political appointees, they are mostly elderly males, and as such, may not have views in line with public consensus, so a person might find that the outcome of a trial may depend on which judge presides over his case. To that extent, there is a similarity with the US.
What is different though, is that (a) religion is a very mild and low key affair in general in the UK compared to the hotbed that it is in the US, and (b) the racial issues that plague the US are less significant here. You can see this reflected in for example the fact that the current UK PM is of Indian heritage and a Hindu, but no one bats an eyelid.
There are definetly some far right people that arent happy. i wasnt surprised that the membership picked Truss. @@dakrontu
That larger vessel might look like a glass to American eyes but it's a jug. The smaller vessel is an outside-of-America sized drinking glass. 😅
The small 'glass' is GIN and the large 'glass' is VODKA - and explains the saying "as sober as a judge..." 😂😊
@@stewedfishproductions9554Or drunk as a lord as the case may be. 😀
@@peterc.1618
Or, perhaps(?) - "drunk as a skunk...' (an Americanism ? It's definitely NOT Cockney rhyming slang)...
@@stewedfishproductions9554No, not many skunks in the east end of London. 😀
It's when the judge reaches for the black cloth you have to start to worry.
Interesting fact is that the black cap was only officially retired in 1998.
Up until that point there were still 3 offences on the books that could have a death sentance imposed although nobody has been charged with any of them since ww2....
The 1968 date given for the abolition of the death penalty was only the date that murder was no longer a capital offence and that the last person was hung (for murder)
@dasy2k1
The death penalty for murder was suspended (how appropriate) in 1966, not 1986. A little slip of memory, perhaps? You're right about the three offences that still carried the death penalty, though. High Treason, Arson in a Naval Dockyard, and Piracy. In the days when warships were made of wood, arson in a naval dockyard was regarded, in effect, as treason.
@@sirderam1 my mistake and I could have sworn I typed 1968 not 86 but was out by 2 years anyway
Although these days, it's just a fashion statement.
@@colinharbinson5510
What's a fashion statement?
In the UK, there are no grand juries to decide if there is a case to answer in the initial phase of a prosecution. The full case is presented in front of a trial jury. The onus however is on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to ensure that the case against the defendant has a reasonable prospect of conviction prior to the trial. If the judge decides that there are fundamental flaws in the prosecution's case using legal precedent, then he/she can order the jury to find the defendant not guilty.
The wigs and gowns, apart from being traditional, are there to emphasize the gravity of the proceedings.
This is more important than it appears. Whichever side wins, both sides can see that there has been a proper trial. Also the wigs emphasize that the people wearing them are doing their jobs, and are not personally involved, even if your side loses.
Ah yes, we see that both sides are clowns.
Barristers's wigs are generally made of horsehair. My son, a junior called to the Inner Temple a few years ago, told me a vegan colleague of his had a special one made of cotton. Wigs are to symbolise that barristers and judges are not representing themselves at court, but represent the position they hold.
Yes Ryan, the reason why the court procedure feels so similar is because it is copied directly from the British system. Over the centuries there have been changes and anomalies brought into the US system largely due to its separation from the Crown, hence the many differences.
Indeed, the big divide is between Anglo-Saxon law and continental Roman law (civil) and often French Napoleontic law (criminal law) on the continent.
They adopted the English law system, not Scottish or Irish.
@@neuralwarp The Irish legal systems (NI and ROI) are very similar to that of England and Wales. As I understand it the Scottish system is based on Roman law while the rest are based on Common law. The latter also applies in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other formerly British colonies. In ROI they have largely given up wearing wigs.
Barristers - the ones with wigs addressing the judge - have exclusive rights to appear in the higher courts: the High Court which deals with civil matters like debt, personal injury compensation and contracts, and the Crown Court which sits with a jury and deals with more serious crimes (the High Court only sits with a jury in defamation cases).
Solicitors are the people you go to see first when you have any legal problem. Obviously they will specialise in particular types of work. They can appear in some of the lower courts, like the Magistrates Court that deals with motoring offences or the Small Claims court that does what it says on the tin,, or in domestic eviction and straightforward family law cases. But for anything that will go to the High Court or Crown Court they have to get a specialist barrister to do the court stuff and appear in court. They then attend court and take notes as the case goes on, literally sitting behind the barrister.
Very senior expert barristers ca be appointed Queen's Counsel or King's Counsel and deal with the most important cases.
Yup, it's complicated. The dressing up is I think retained largely to put the fear of God into the litigants themselves and make them take it seriously.
I did jury service a couple of years ago. We get sworn in on your holy book if you’re religious but as I’m atheist, I made a secular declaration. Also, as the defendant was only 17, the judge and barristers chose not to wear their wigs. I think the US courts are based in the English judicial system.
Lawyer is a generic term. Effectively a barrister has rights of audience in court where a solicitor doesn’t. Certain exemptions to this in the lowest courts. If you have a legal issue in the UK you go to a solicitor. A solicitor may then engage a barrister for further help and advice, especially if the case may end up in the court
A better way of looking at it is this.
You might use a solicitor for a police interview, or to seek legal advice.
If you are charged with an offence, the solicitor will instruct a barrister to act on your behalf, and represent you in court, their role is usually to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and challenge points of law being made, sometimes citing case law, this is where legal arguments become long and drawn out and often days can go by with a single argument on a point of law which may decide which way the court hearing goes.
I work in UK law enforcement and I used to interview arrested prisoners and speak with solictors on a regular basis, mainly legal reps (who are often NOT solicitors and it's only a short 5 week or so course). Some of the people I did meet were actual solicitors however.
On the subject of barrister. A couple of weeks ago I actually saw a barista serve a barrister in a coffee shop, just across the road from Nottingham Crown Court. I knew she was a barrister because she had one of those cloth bags with the name of her "chambers" on it.
' a barista serve a barrister'! Don't try to say it when you had one or two drinks too many! 😉😁
The video depicts the English and Welsh crown court system. The court systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different again. There are also the High Court, the Court of Appeal and lower courts In England and Wales - County Court, Magistrates' Court and Tribunals Service - for more minor offences. The UK also now has a Supreme Court. which adjudicates on constitutional matters (although there is no formal written Constitution) and is also the highest appellant court in England and Wales. There is also the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal for all UK immigration cases and the Military Court Service. The system is complicated to say the least.
Barristers and solicitors (both are trained legal practitioners with different roles and skills) are not directly paid for by the government. A defendant must fund their own defence, unless they are entitled to receive Legal Aid. Criminal prosecutions in England and Wales are funded by the Crown Prosecution Service, which in turn is financed by HM Treasury.
Disclaimer: My comment may be imprecise, so please don't sue me.
Yep. Although the SC is also the highest appellant court for Scotland and Northern Ireland too (except Scottish criminal cases (unless on Human rights or constitutional grounds)).
There's also the Scottish Children's Reporter where Children's Panels deal in a more informal way with those under 18 who need to be dealt with by the legal system, whether as victims or perpetrators. A hearing is held if a child:
Suffers from lack of parental care.
Is falling into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger.
Is beyond the control of their parent/carer (relevant person).
The child, or another child in the same household, has been the victim of an offence such as sexual abuse, assault or neglect.
Is a member of the same household as a person who has offended against a child or young person.
Has failed to attend school without reasonable excuse.
Has committed an offence.
Has abused solvents, or misused drugs or alcohol.
The majority of children are there because of parental neglect and their future needs to be decided.
The single biggest difference: High Court judges are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the lord chancellor. Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Judicial Appointments Commission has removed the appointment of judges from the overtly political arena. High Court judges, like other judges, are appointed on open competition. (Wikipedia)
Today we learnt, Americans don't have jugs.
Ha ha yes... I was going to comment on that too... Large glass and a small glass..lol
Probably because they called jugs… pitchers?? 🤷🏽♀️
That made me chuckle too. How does his brain go to big giass small glass and disperse of the notion it may be a jug/pitcher and a glass?? 😂🤣🤣😂
😂😂
I came here JUST to see if anyone else commented about Ryan NOT knowing what a jug or pitcher looks like... 😂😂😂 (TBH, he often knows nothing about lots of things 😅 !)
Ryan as never seen a JUG of water before.
I think it's because in the US drinks are often served in glasses the size of jugs/pitchers in the UK! 😂
Ryan OFTEN knows little about lots of things... 😂😂😂
In Australia, “Criminal matters: Barristers traditionally wear robes and wigs in the District Court except on chambers matters. Barristers do not wear a wig if the judge appears without a wig at the outset. Ceremonial occasions: barristers wear robes and wigs; in the case of silk, full bottomed wigs are worn.”
Same in the English courts. Generally, in civil cases, barristers will not wear wigs but this is entirely at the discretion of the judge(s). Robes and “bands” are still worn in the higher courts (that is in civil appeals), but neither robes or wigs are worn in the courts at first instance.
Is a barrister a lawyer? Please,😅😅😅why is this presenter so illiterate?
@@pathopewell1814Ryan is not the presenter, he’s reacting to the video, comparing his understanding of US courts to UK courts. Each country uses different titles for things. They don’t call lawyers barristers in the US, they call them attorneys.
@@pathopewell1814 Well not an American term, so gets a free pass. Do you know all US terms?
"Crown Court" was a long-running UK TV court drama series based on realistic cases and circumstances. There are many episodes on YT. It is worth looking at if you like to see more details and action.
Good series that was.
Wearing wigs in the UK courts dates back to the 17th century. During this time, wigs were not exclusive to the legal profession but were a fashionable accessory among the British elite. Judges began adopting wigs as a symbol of their social status and authority.
Lord Maltravers tried to "modernise" judicial vesture. He got half way before he was outvoted.
Now they just look stupid.
As an aside, not two glasses, the larger is a water carafe which you use to refill the glass
That wasn't a big cup the judge had. It was a jug of water so he can refill his glass lol.
The US has inherited the English Common Law. Hence the similarities.
Well british common law is still the law of the land in the usa. Juat heavily modified but still forms the base of america law so many standards etc and procedures and laws themselves are the same or similar Scotland and Northern Ireland don't exist let's be honest here. They pretend they exist and that they matter but they don't so yes british common law. Ps Northern Ireland is not Britain its the uk. Scotland is just an area of poor England where we put the poor and the inbred. Tbeh might pretend to be another country but theh are english so again british common law. It wasn't English common law at the time back rhe it was british common law. Scotland having its own laws is a relatively new thing in british history. And only cos we allowed them. English common law is british common law as everyone had to follow bebglish laws back rhen, none of this nonsense giving Scotland its own pretend government and letting it choose some of its own laws. And british common law like I say is English common law. Its called commonxlaw because all our colobys have to accept it a d Scotland has to accept it. Yes it can cha ge some laws but it can't do what it wants it has to beg England to change things. 😉 so british common law =e glish common law
@@cyberash3000 No. He’s right. It’s English but if you want to be specific it’s England and Wales. Americans usually mix up British and English and think they’re one and the same but it’s not. Scotland and NI have separate laws and legal systems
@lanabmc3519 that's what I meant you blithering idiots. I am brotish I don't count Scotland or Northern Ireland as Britain as they don't matter and their existence is pointless. I'm from lancashire. Britain to me is England and Wales
@lanabmc3519 and I know I'm right you don't need to tell me I'm right I already know
@@cyberash3000 You’re not. Paul Booth is. It’s English law you’re referring to. There is no British law. English law is different from Scottish and northern Irish laws. There is no such thing as British law.
Duh! Ryan, that’s not a big glass, it’s a jug, mate! Do you not have jugs in America? Oh wait, you have huge drinking cups! I forgot! ROTFL!
In the U.S, it would be called a pitcher. They have jugs, they just have a different name for them.
In our courts here in Guernsey, Channel Islands, they still wear wigs but also have to speak Medieval Normandy French. Our laws are pretty old.
Do they actually speak Guernésiais though??
@t.ist666 That's what I mean but not a lot of people know what that is.
The wigs date back to a time in history when all Gentlemen wore wigs. They have been kept largely through tradition however they are a reminder to everyone in the Court of the seriousness and solemness of the situation, highlighting the importance of the 3 Lawyers in the room: Prosecution, Defense and Judge. It is the Crown who prosecutes criminals, we have both lower and upper courts including magistrates who deal with lower crimes. We also have family courts which deal exclusively with cases involving Minors. The Lawyers who ply their trade in Court are called Barristers because they have sat and passed the Bar Exam. The “bar” in bar exam or bar association is not an acronym. The origin of the term bar derives from the physical layout of a courtroom. A wood rail separates court observers from the judge, jury, lawyers, and parties in a courtroom. This wooden bar has come to symbolize the law.
In England and Wales about 94% of criminal cases go to the Magistrates Court. Three Justices hear these cases (also some civil cases) and are advised on the law by a Legal Advisor (once called the Clerk). They are not required to be qualified in the law but are citizens selected, trained and regularly assessed. Appeals from their courts are heard in the Crown Court with a Judge and two Justices. It is unpaid with allowances for travel, food & drink and loss of income. I was a Justice, now retired.
In NZ we have a very similar court system to the UK and, like the UK have evolved over time to meet changing social environments.
For example, a unanimous decision by the jury is not required. This is to minimise the chances of a hung jury where, say, one person has been bribed or intimidated or simply, for personal reasons, religious or otherwise, takes an immovable position on guilt or innocence not based on the law or the evidence presented.
Another is the "double jeopardy" situation where a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. With the advanced of science, DNA being an obvious one, strong evidence may be available that was not available at the time of the trial or proof may be found of tampering with the jury, perjury or any other matter which, if available at the time of the first trial would have most likely have lead to a different result. Such a retrial needs to be initiated on a strong basis and is used with caution.
I worked for the probation service for many years so spent a lot of time in and around courts. Witnesses swear according to their faith or, if they have no religion, they can affirm. There are a whole range of bodies that can prosecute - Department of Health and Social Security, Civil Aviation Authority, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals etc etc - but the main body responsible for prosecution is the Crown Prosecution Service, which either uses its own staff to prosecute or will employ lawyers on a case by case basis. Generally a unanimous decision is required from a jury but if they cannot decide, the judge may allow a majority verdict, i.e. one that ten members agree upon. The video is really just about the Crown Courts in England and Wales, rather than the whole UK, as Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems,
The judge thinks it rather gauche to chug his water straight from the jug, so he has a small glass into which he can pour a smaller amount, and drink this with more delicacy. Once he’s drunk that and if he wants any more, he can return to the jug and refill his glass… Hope this helps… (they wear wigs, btw, because they did, didn’t they, in the past?…)
There was a UK version of Law & Order that was pretty cool, and it showed a lot about the UK criminal court system. In the US we have "State's attorney" or the "US Attorney" who prosecute and they have a CROWN prosecutor, because obviously the government of the UK receives its authority from the Crown (in theory).
A big difference is that in the US potential jurors are questioned by attorneys and the judge, this does not happen in the UK.
All UK juries are anonymous; no one is entitled to know their names or details
But as far as I know in England counsel can, without questioning, replace a small number of jurors for whatever reason.
@@MaisiewupppI would expect that is the case because in Australia we largely follow the British system and yes counsel can each challenge THREE jurors without restriction. In criminal proceedings they get an extra peremptory challenge without restriction. My daughter did jury duty recently and made it to the empaneling stage. She was challenged and dismissed thankfully!
@@MaisiewupppNo, the right to peremptorily challenge a juror has been removed. The first time I did jury service ( 30+ years ago) it still existed but when I did jury service (5 years ago) it had been removed. In both cases, the judge advised the jury members that they must recuse themselves if they knew the defendant(s) or had knowledge of the case beyond what Joe Public would know. You were also told that you must tell the judge if you knew any of the witnesses.
@@Maisiewuppp Up to three when I did my service.
Barristers are almost all in self-employment. They are instructed by solicitors for the crown or the accused. So a criminal barrister may appear for either. Prosecution solicitors are typically employed by the Crown Prosecution Service (although other government departments and local authorities may prosecute in some cases.) There are also private prosecutions but they are rare.
The basic British formulae for trial has been adopted by many countries of the world, merely because of the British Empire, and the fact that it works pretty well in most cases.
You either get sworn in on the holy book of your choosing, or you take a non-religious oath. That's what we did when I had jury duty a few years ago.
My line of work here. I sat where the Prosecution solicitor sits in this vid, and as such, I am the only crown/government employee. Judges & barristers are self employed (tho' some barristers are employed by my company which was the Crown Prosecution service). We are civil servants. Once upon a time in the Crown defendants would have been flanked by 2 prison officers, reduced over time to 1. Prison officers are also civil servants. Nowadays, the dock is manned by private security companies. Yes they still wear horse hair wigs. One summer in court a judge allowed everyone to remove the wigs (it was so hot) & I noticed how the barristers argued more with the judge as they did when wearing them. Coincidence probably, but I did wonder
@sooevers9411 I don't believe in coincidences.
Same here in Australia, except for very complex/high profile, the Department of Public Prosecution may engage outside Counsel (aka external barrister)with specialist knowledge on the domain of the matter.
@@jpmasters-aus pretty much the same here in England and Wales
“Today, I woke up and realised that I don’t know how the UK court system works” - no comment :)
Ryan... 'Derby' is pronounced "Darby"
_not_ _Derby_
...and you _have_ been told this several times _before_ so *Please* stop acting like Tyler, and just *read* your comments and _try_ to _remember_ what you're _being_ _told_ 🥺
(f🦆's sake!!) ?!! 🤔🏴❤️🖖
Assuming it does work.
He doesn’t even remember what he’s been told in the video a few seconds after hearing it. He’s not going to remember comments. :)@@brigidsingleton1596
At least he's not acting shocked by f3cken roasted potatoes 😅@@brigidsingleton1596
I have done two weeks of Jury Service (& was chosen to be a Juror on two cases - regarding theft - in that time, the first in an old Court building, the second in a new Court building) ...
It was some time in the early 1980's,probably around 1983, or 4,
I don't recall the actual time-frame but it was definitely well before 11th October 1986!! ...
I have never appeared as a witness in Court.
Lots of countries have their judges wear wigs and robes. Its incredibly common
I believe it to be a form of disguise so they are not recognised outside of court. Some British Colonies, particularly smaller islands used to have very serious cases such as murder tried by judges from the UK as it would be difficult to have good security for the judge in a small community.. They would visit specifically to do a particular trial. Serious offences would result in a circuit charge.
The UK-Judiciary is still in use in many of its (former) territories. Even the opening of the legal year in HongKong still retained all of its former UK traditions (including the scepter, attire, wigs, bagpipes and opening statements in English).
Interesting that you didn't mention that the witnesses are STANDING. In most criminal cases, witnesses are sworn in and then seated in the witness box.
Also, in cases I've seen, the jury foreman will deliver their verdict in writing; the bailiff gives it to the judge, who reviews it, and it is then returned to the jury foreman who will then read it aloud.
If that's the case, it's changed in recent years - I've been foreman of a jury twice, and in each case I had to read out the verdict.
@@ougadougou9 -- and you didn't have to let the judge see it before you got to read it? Okay, cool. It's been a couple decades since I was anywhere near a court room, and maybe every court is run differently. Thanks
Interesting video. I worked for criminal defence solicitors and remember the first time I attended the Old Bailey for a murder case. I was so hyped up I could barely concentrate and take notes 😅
That was a really good video - I've never seen that before. Incidentally, part of a judge's regalia is a square of black cloth called the black cap. Although we have long since abolished the death penalty, traditionally, the judge would wear it when passing sentence of death. Although still carried by judges, it's obviously no longer used.
Then you go to Scotland where it's a 15 person jury , 3 verdicts and totally different legal systems
And then NI is different again. This isn’t really ‘uk’ court system shown or even British. It’s just England and Wales
I also want to point out that as was said that is the procedure in England and Wales, Scotland has its own legal system and always has since before the Act of Union there are NO CROWN COURTS in Scotland! Our Highest Criminal Court is the High Court of Justiciary sitting with one judge and jury hearing the most serious criminal cases, the High Court of Justiciary also acts as the final Criminal Court of Appeal in Scotland when it sits with either 2 or 3 judges depending on the nature of business! I believe an appeal purely on sentence sits with 2 senior judges whereas in the case of a Full Appeal against conviction, it sits with 3 senior judges!
The court below that in Scotland is the Sheriff Court which hears middle range criminal matters and when sitting with a Jury the Sheriff can impose a maximum sentence of 5 years I believe BUT if he is sitting on his own with No Jury the maximum sentence he/she can pass is a year
Below that we have the Justice Of the Peace Courts (Formerly the District Courts) which hears of less serious matters!
IIRC a few years ago barristers were asked if they wanted to continue wearing wigs and they voted to do so.
Over 30 years ago I had my one experience in court, as a jury member. It looked very similar to that video, except the defence solicitor was sitting behind the defence barrister and they sometimes talked. There were also several burly policemen standing near the defendant after he leapt over the dock and tried to get to a witness, his ex-girlfriend who he was accused of assaulting.
There were two charges, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm. The judge said that it was up to us to decide whether a broken nose would count as GBH but indicated that he didn't think so.
Unlike the US, in the UK it is an offence for a jury member to discuss what happened in the jury room even after the case is over, so I can only mention what happened in the courtroom.
I was the foreman and annouced that we had found him guilty of ABH but not GBH. Then various drug charges the defendant was waiting sentencing on were mentioned and some suspended sentences. With them running concurrently he was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison. But it was now clear why the prosecution had tried for the more serious charge.
A TV comedy that was written by a lawyer and presents various aspects of the UK legal system in a fun way is Rumpole - th-cam.com/play/PLaW84zjbaYZLLeYpcZkxulRohrZ7zDdEG.html
In England, juries always have 12 people.
In Scotland, civil cases have juries of 12 people, criminal cases have juries of 15 people. In Scotland, a civil case is between plaintiff and defendant. In a criminal case, the person in the dock is called the accused.
In days gone past, a black cloth was placed on top of the wig when handing down a death sentence. Last used 13/08/64.
It's the same because your law is based on English law
Yes they wear wigs and in England some wear crowns. And titles lords and ladies . Its called a class system. You have a similar thing in the US where the law is fair and applies to all rigidly except the rich and powerful who are above the law , just like here in the UK.
There is a sense of theatre to UK courts. That is a good th ing. In the US one might be looking at a church hallmeeting. The theatre makes it all very real for those in the dock.
The Scottish legal system is different to that in England and Wales.
Just to note there are three legal systems
in the United Kingdom
The Law of England and Wales
The Law of Scotland
and the Law of Northern Ireland.
This showed the process for a court under
the law of England and Wales.
For me knowledge of the crown courts
came from a 1970s series called Crown Court
where the jury were ordinary members of the public
and the actors presented a case to them.
I think it was on daily at lunchtime
and it was very interesting.
The theme tune was Janacek's Sinfonetta:
th-cam.com/video/-uHLMW8_ez8/w-d-xo.html
The system has been reviewed since the seventies
and some of the language has changed.
Oh Ryan, your Court system is based on ours. Your Constitution, your whole governmental system is based on ours. Even your 'freedoms' of free speech, freedom of the press etc are based on ours. Please consider watching THE TRUE HISTORY OF FREEDOM NEVER TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS/THOMAS SOWELL' and it will give you more information. There was a time the population of the USA was 80% British - so that's why its like SO similar to ours. Also your Founding Fathers used to sit in our Houses of Parliament and other of our Institutions and take notes.
9:14 The jury elect a 'foreman' to act as leader and spokesperson. They generally count the jury votes and try and get resolve a verdict when it is 50/50.
Our Australian system is the same as the British. Obviously we were a British colony and many of our laws and our parliamentary system is the same as the UK. The way we look at it, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, it has worked perfectly for us. And our judges are NEVER appointed for their political views, that would be a complete scandal in this country. They are appointed on merit, which is how it should always be. Politics and the judiciary should never be intertwined, it creates the possibility of political corruption, as we have seen in the US!
This is an outline of the Court proceedings , the wigs are a tradition certainly but make the key characters easily identifiable . There are big differences from the US. regarding Jury selection and Reporting . In Scotland there is a third verdict of ' not proven ' .
Derby is pronounced Darrby
There are 3 wigs used in court. Flat judge's wig, curly barrister's, and solicitor's. King's Counsel (KC, senior lawyers) wear long wigs on ceremonial occasions.
The U.K. does not have the “Grand Jury” system pre trial to decide on adequacy of the evidence - instead the “acquittal” option from the judge as described.
The "big glass" is a jug.
The law used to be that it had to be unanimous. However, owing to concerns that this made it easy for gangsters to get to one of the jurors the law was changed. If the jury has not reached a decision after a reasonable time, the judge may state that he will accept a verdict supported by 10 of the 12.
As far as I am aware a Barrister may not chose the cases that are placed in front of him / her, whilst a Solicitor / Lawyer can. Ie, the Barrister must take on the cases presented to him / her as the appointed Prosecutor or Defence Lawyer.
`The Courtroom has been the place of some teriffic dramas over the years based in the British Isles and upon British Law. I`m thinking in terms of Rumpole of the Baily, Kavanagh, QC.... Judge John Deed, etc !
There are also some fine dramas based in `courtrooms` of past generations, ie set in Victorian times, for example.
Naturally there has also been some fantastic dramas made by US TV Production Companies based, of course, in US `Courts.` In one particular film I liked Cher played the part of a Lawyer who was forced to defend ( as a Barrister would be forced here ) a mute homeless chap ( played by Leam Neeson ? ) against the crime of Murder. I think the film was called "Suspect."
The Prosecutor over here is, I believe, The Crown. Just as in the `States The Prosecutor will ( I assume ) be The State - in accusations of State Law violations and The Unted States iin the casee of Federal Offences.
I could, of course, be completely wrong - on all counts.
Jury of 12 goes back to Magna Carta, AFAIK, when the nobles decided they didn't want the king deciding their guilt or innocence, they wanted the right to a jury of their peers, and along with that comes the assumption of 'innocent unless proven guilty' as opposed to 'guilty unless proven innocent'. This is common in the Anglosphere, spreading out from Britain, and kept because it was good, something to be proud of. Not sure it is the same elsewhere, eg in the Francosphere, where I think the system goes back to whatever Napoleon decided on.
I was in both the Magistrates and the Crown Court today. So coming back yo see this is just 😂
Your not sat at the back alone. You have 2 security people sat with you. They nice make sure you have water tissues etc , but ultimately will transport you to prison if that's your sentence.
Behind you at the back is also a door to the stairs , that takes you to the holding cells for anyone that has come to court from prison.
In the US, them jury foreperson is asked, “How do you find?” The jury foreperson announces their verdict. It’s handed to the Judge who approves or disapproves.
The only things I saw different are the wigs, and some of the terminology. Great video Ryan. Can't wait for the video's that you do that go deeper into the British court system. Peace (My friend, did you really not recognize a water pitcher?)
Ryan, all serious cases are examined first by our CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) who decide if there is enough of a case to go before courts to examine the evidence and the outcome.
CPS - otherwise known as the Criminals Protection Service, or alternatively Couldn't Prosecute Shit.
We have two courts, Magistrates and Crown. The former may hear cases where the punishment carries a maximum of 6 months in prison (Occasionally cases are heard and then sent to crown court for sentencing) The latter hears more serious cases and represents the monarch or crown. Interestingly the protection of the law could be removed from an individual or group, (This does not happen now) this was a precarious state of affairs since they would have no legal recourse for theft, assault, injury or even death... these people were known as outlaws.
The Barristers are Lawyers, often privately hired by the Defendant, while the Prosecution Barristers are employed by the state. The wigs & costumes are just a hang over from the 18th century, when nearly all gentlemen wore wigs. In the Courts it just accentuates the official nature of their work. The American system is just more or less a continuation of the legal system of Britain in Colonial days. The layout of the court room varies a little from place to place, some being very old buildings & some newer. The defendants lawyers do not sit with & confer with them during the trial, but consult in breaks outside of the room, if permitted by the Judge. Solicitors are Lawyers who's offices you may find in any town.
They deal privately with all legal matters, such as property buying, divorces, neighbour disputes, & will be the go-to lawyer if a person is dealing with criminal matters. They do not generally themselves prosecute or defend criminal cases, but accompany the defendant in court to advise & guide them through the procedures. Barristers generally belong to one of the Inns of Court, ancient associations of Lawyers in the City of London. Each will specialise is particular types of cases & trials, so a Solicitor will ask one of these to conduct the case, while the Crown (prosecution) will ask & instruct another to Prosecute the case.
All Legal matters go first to a Magistrates Court. These are regional or local & consist of locally appointed Magistrates, usually 3 in number , hearing a case & if it is quite minor, coming to a decision on whether a full trial is needed. The Defendant, through their Solicitor, can ask that the case bypass the Magistrates & be sent to the Crown Court instead, which is where it goes to the sort of set up with Judge & Jury that is a full criminal Court. Any serious criminal case will automatically by sent to the Crown Court by the Magistrates.
In the UK it is often permitted for a conclusion to be made by a majority jury verdict, but that is up to the particular Judge trying the case, who may require a unanimous vote.
Jury vetting does not occur as it seems to in the American system, there are very limited grounds for dismissing a Juror, & they are not questioned in court the way that they seem to be in the US. The point is that the Jurors & defendants are not known to each other, & the defendant cannot be told of the circumstances of any juror, so that no intimidation can take place, & a more favourable jury cannot be manipulated by either side in the case.
This is a bit strange because originally, in Medieval times the members of a local Jury were chosen from the defendants neighbours, who would have been aware of any disputes, bad blood between families, personal rivalries & gossip. This was meant to ensure a fair hearing. It was bad luck on a defendant if he/she was the most unpopular person in the area, or came from the wrong family, very good luck if one was among the locals best regarded people, or from the right family. You can see why neutrality was eventually introduced, to ensure which cases were taken to different areas where the jurors were unlikely to know the defendants circumstances etc.
You were looking at what is known as a Crown Court; but there are different courts, and the processes are quite different. For example, simple crimes such as not paying your TV licence, low level traffic offences, drunk and disorderly etc are dealt with by a Magistrates Court; here, you can have a solicitor if you wish or if your (vehicle) insurance provides for a legal representative. Such cases are usually a fine of some degree, but there is no jury. For much more serious crimes, the Crown Court is the next one up the line.
In the USA you have a lawyer who represents your full time in court. In the UK, our lawyer is known as a solicitor. He will handle your case, but he does not present your case to the Judge, he hands it over to a qualified barrister who is usually referred to as "The learned Counsel/lor the Defence/Prosecution." These Counsellors are basically the only people along with the judge/s who wear wigs, the wig signifying their status. These are lawyers at the top of their game, although there is a higher level again, known as KC or QC (King's/Queen's Councillor) which places them one the same level as the Judge. The UK also has the High Court/Supreme Court.
You're confusing the reference to application to dismiss by saying that's usually done before a court appearance. The decision on that rests on the evidence - which is the whole purpose of having a court hear it!!! What you really mean - I assume - is a pre-court Hearing. In the UK, the Hearing only determines the level of the charges. In court, those charges might be reduced to a lesser charge, dependng entirely on the evidence.
The term "Reasonable Doubt" only applies to Jury cases, and not to Magistrates. Example: "I already paid the money Your Honour." "Where's your receipt or other evidence to verify that/" "I lost it Your Honour." The qustion is whether the accused has or has not paid the money, but with no evidence to show, there is no such thing as "Reasonable Doubt." On ther basis of the evidence produced, the verdict will be one of guilt as charged!
Virtually everything in the UK comes under the Judiciary - even the government. Here, the word used is "Crown" because the judges are not placed into authority by politicians or government, there are appointed by the Monarchy - a huge distinction from most other countries. No UK Government can appoint or fire a Judge or Barrister, so politics is kept out of the Judiciary....and the reaon why the national court symbol is blindfolded!
Finally, as a Christian-based system going back centuries, the Holy Bible has always been the standard for telling the truth. However, in today's very mixed society, the court will apply whichever standard of an Oath according to each defendent's religious belief.
In England & Wales, all criminal cases are heard first in a Magistrates Court and only about 10% are forwarded for trial at a higher court. A Magistrates Court has two or usually three magistrates, or a single judge - but no jury.
A witness can be sworn in on any holy book of their choice or no book at all,
The oath statement will be whatever format the witness is comfortable with.
Most religions (and no religion) are covered, even Jedis.
The standard is beyond reasonable doubt but the typical jury direction is that you must be sure or certain. That’s because reasonable doubt is difficult for the layman to parse. It is always the law that it is not for the defendant to show their innocence but for the crown to prove their guilt.
Yes Ryan in some state the judge will ask the jury, what their findings were and the foreperson will deliver the verdict.
The Judge is the imbodiment of the King or Qyeen. You cannot sit by them unless they request it. This comes from the time when the King would tour the country to give out justice.
DERBY is pronounced DARBY !
UK barristers are self employed or working from chambers.
That " big glass " is a JUG !!
In the UK the jury are not allowed to tell anyone their decision until they are asked by the judge.
Their not allowed to discuss the case even then, certainly not in the media.
@@peterharridge8565 You're not allowed to discuss what was said in the jury room at any time during or after the trial. Not ever, to anyone, even family.
@@TestGearJunkie. Remind me what I said then, the previous comment was 5 months ago so 5 months ago I guess. But TH-cam not showing my comment. Maybe though I was referring to US system as this video is to find out about the UK system by an American (so comparing).
In the US though we see jurors tell us about what their view is in the media about cases where a verdict has been declared, often. In the UK this never happens. That said I have been asked by family and friends (colleagues at work) about the cases that I was a juror on. I guess that is true with every juror. Every Juror in the UK knows these rules but often friends do not so they ask. To pretend that every Juror follows these rules esp with close family is I think delusion. It doesn't come out because the close family doesn't say to others hopefully. But of course to cases that are not in the public eye it does no harm. No one knows who you are talking about.
@@peterharridge8565 You said (quote) "Their not allowed to discuss the case even then, certainly not in the media."(unquote)
@@TestGearJunkie. Then I am agreeing with you, this has come up today (my original quote). No idea why it didn't yesterday.
The wigs are because 700 years ago you would go in front of the Monarch (hence "Court"). This became delegated to Judges, but technically the King can take to the bench (and become a Judge) - they still pardon (on recommendation). Would be a scandal that the Royal Family would survive, though!
They are also there to depersonalise the whole thing. They show the force of law and the seriousness of where you are. It is basically wearing a suit to a job interview on stilts.
I read somewhere (I don't know how true it is)
Technically in the UK you can ask for a trial before the King/Queen
but...
If they approve it, then you are completely at the mercy of the King/Queen,
The king is not bound by laws, he can give the verdict he wants
and there is no appeal against the verdict, whatever it may be
That's probably why no one wants to try their luck in front of the King
You can, but it is at The Monarch's discretion (and they never do!). The King could in theory turn up any day at any Court - and sit.
"We copied you!" (but without the wigs)
Here in the mid 1990's, our New Zealand Chief Justice, decided that wigs did not have to be worn in court. Today, they might be worn only for a ceremonial situation. The purpose was to bring a sense of solemnise to the occasion and to clearly identify the authority of those with the responsibility to conduct the court hearing. It used to be mandatory in the High Court prior to this. The barrister for the prosecution in a criminal case is usually employed by the government and acting for the Crown. The barrister for the defense is only paid by the government in a case that requires legal aide. This means the person charged has no ability to engage and pay for a legal representative. If the person has money or assets, they will have to pay themselves, either at the time or later if they sell their property. The government will attach a claim against their property for the legal fees owing. The wigs were not required in family court or district court for less serious offenses. Great video, Ryan. Thank you. Kind regards from Rae in New Zealand
Solemnity. You’re welcome.
You keep saying how similar the systems are……where do you think you got the US system from? No surprises really
Prosecution barrister is equivalent to the US ADA(government). The defence barrister ( private)is engaged for a price by the defendant, but if he cant afford one legal aid will be awarded so that he will have representation. The wig and robes are effectively the uniform worn in crown court . It is simply historic tradition for hundreds of years but it does serve the purpose of acting as a differentiator between keys officials in the court(barristers and judge) and everyone else, making it very clear to the layman who is who.
Barristers are the only practitioners licensed to plead a case in front of a judge on most instances. Though there are some exceptional cases where solicitors can stand. Defence barristers are 'instructed' by solicitors on behalf of the clients. The cost of mounting a defence may be waived if the case fails but prosecution AND defence costs could be levelled if the judge considers that the defendent pleaded a no-hope case.
Barristers generally work for Chambers and are expensive 'guns for hire' in court. Solicitors do most of the mundane legal work such as less serious offences before magistrates, wills, probate and house buying.
Another major difference between US and UK courts is the jury. In the UK the jury is appointed by the court, the defence and prosecution have no say in the appointment of the jury.
Not true, The Prosecution & the Defence in the UK can object to a certain number of jurors, without having to state a reason
Jury decisions are required to be unanimous. If a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision the judge may accept a majority decision and set the acceptable majority (11-1. 10-2)
Although the judge can say they will only accept a unanimous decision
If the jury cannot reach a decision within the acceptable guideline then there will be a retrial with a new jury
The reason that men in the United Kingdom and the United States started to wear wigs, was syphilis which ravaged the USA and Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries. As the fashion for long hair on men died out, men no longer wore wigs to cover up that they had the disease. However the courts being hide bound and extremely unwilling to change fashion, continued to wear wigs, and it became very much the standard uniform of the British court system. In many European courts they too have a far more formal dress than is seen in the US, and can involve gowns, sashes and distinctive head gear. This is especially true of judges, who even in the US system in the higher courts still wear gowns/black robes.
Nice to see someone in the comments who knows their history :)
We have retained it becasue it ensures a degree of anonymity for the barristers and like a uniform doesn't distract the jury with considerations of how good the barristers suit or hair is.
Really? 1400s and the 1500s? You're at least a hundred years out. Wigs in British courts didn't become a thing until the last half of the 1600s.
The video failed to clarify what a solicitor is. A solicitor is also a lawyer who traditionally wasn't an advocate but now there are also solicitor advocates.
Also with regards to the wigs, they do give the wearer some anonymity outside, you are less likely to recognise them without it.
I vaguely seem to recall that in Australia years ago the Family Court which deals with child custody etc re-introduced wigs for judges because emotional parents were not showing proper respect for judges who were not wearing wigs and robes in an attempt to make the court more informal.
English juries have 12 jurors and decide unanimously. Exceptions apply. Scottish juries have 15 jurors and decide by majority. Civil juries are .. weird.
Each level of judge wears a distinctive robe. You saw a criminal circuit judge. Supreme court judges only wear their black and gold robes for ceremonies.
The gown and wigs anonymises the barristers. Under the gown barristers tend to wear morning dress again as a sort of uniform. So again flashy dressing does not become a distraction.
Wigs sometimes get dispensed with in hot weather. Judges usually gets appointed from barristers. A senior barrister is known as a KC Kings Council.
and KCs (previously QCs) are known informally as a “silk”, due to the silk gown, I believe.
@@DeepThought9999 when they get elevated to KC it is called taking silk, ie they a silk gown. a KC will always have a junior barrister with them to assist and learn.
They used to put a black wig on when someone was sentence to death there is no death sentence in uk that is a container of water and a glass the person give their verdict is called forman of the jury
A forman is chosen by the jurors,he will tell the court the jurors verdict.❤
The wigs where in fashion at the time and now it is tradition.
Have been in a murder jury at the Old Baily. Personal think the wigs and tradition is all part of the solemn and serious nature of what is happening. I like tradition. Small glass and big glass? Carafe and glass dude. CPS makes the determination to bring a case - then before the Jury the Prosecution lays out its case - and Judge can make a determination is there has been enough evidence submitted - in front of the Jury.
A big difference with the USA is we don't have voir dire and jury selection: the court selects jury members before the trial & a member is only replaced if they know the defendant or witnesses. For long trials alternates may be selected in case 1 of the original 12 has to leave because they are ill or suffer a bereavement of a close relative.
2:00 Not really! The reason is this isn't the London Fashion Week but a court of justice. Plain and uniform clothing doesn't take away the focus from the legal stuff being discussed.
They are public "lawyers" .The Prosecution ( CPS ) are a government service .The defence team are Private firms who hold and are paid under government contract .The client chooses their solicitor from a number of availabel firms , the defence SOLICITOR applies for Legal Aid on behalf of the client .The Defence SOLICITOR prepares the case . The defence SOLICITOR selects the barrister from Chambers,that barrister is paid seperately under government contract. Legal Aid is available to all who qualify on meritsand means . If you dont qualify on means then the defence team is paid for privately .However , the majority of defendant's appearing in the Crown Court are on LegalAid. Neither , side are political appointees and both sides are audited indepently to ensure quality and cost effectiveness . The Judge is also not a political appointee . The wigs and gowns are retaiined like a uniform ,it makes both sides look the same rather than distract with how they are dressed or how bad their hair is. If I seem a tad snarky , defence solicitors dont just take notes in Court we run the show for the defence!!
Very interesting video and reaction.
I’m also curious about why they wear wigs.
In my country, we stopped having a jury. We have two judges and five regular people deciding on a case. I think it’s better. A jury with no knowledge of the law can judge on emotions.
BTW; I like the robes the barristers and judge are wearing 😊
Depending on the court, the more serious matter, Judges and Barristers, were robes and headpieces.
A solicitor operates advising clients on criminal and non-criminal matters.
Barristers are lawyers who have specialised court advocates on both sides.
In a complex civil court matter, there may be barristers for each person/organisation.
The gowns and wigs remind everybody that Judges and Barristers are separate from the person. For court matters around horrendous cases, separation is good for everyone.
Until around the early 1980s, our High Court could still be appealable to the Privy Council in the UK. From that point on, the highest court for Australian matters, often revolving the interplay to the case and our Constitution.
Its about respect and dignity. A court is a very formal environment. It is very important that traditions are maintained.