In the 18th century, the peculiarities of the English legal system began to take shape. The state began to play a role in the prosecution of criminals, which was previously usually carried out by the victim. Graduated sentences for crimes replaced the previous capture of all executions. At the same time, superstition also had a great influence. Witchcraft was a crime, often punishable by death. The Church still had influence over the legal system, as clergy could have crimes transferred to ecclesiastical courts, where non-clergy risked death. Although the slave trade was abolished in the 19th century, it did not change the status of existing slaves. Legislative changes in 20th century England dealt largely with equal treatment before the law. Many countries that already used an English common law system have made similar reforms. At the end of the 20th century, laws began to appear about England`s role within the European Union. In the 1800s, English law was largely reformed and unified. Conflicting laws stemming from regional traditions have been developed in a coherent manner.
District courts and prosecutors have standardized the application of the law. The privileges of the clergy were also gradually abolished. At the end of this period, the treatment of women under the law also began to move closer to that of men. Introduction The first edition of my book Introduction to the English Legal System was published in 2000. One of its central themes is that the English legal system is extremely dynamic. 17 years later and after the publication of the 12. Editing in early 2017, I reflect here on what has happened over the past 17 years and identify some of the issues that are likely to shape further changes. The most important changes In the last 15 years, there have been significant changes in the English legal system, which are generally divided into two phases. First, those introduced under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (2000-2010); in second place were the coalition/conservative governments led by David Cameron (2010-2015). During Phase 1, significant institutional changes were made. This period was also marked by important reforms of civil procedure, with an emphasis on the active handling of cases by judges.
During the same period, initial steps were also taken to limit legal aid expenditure by reducing the range of issues for which legal aid would be available. • Institutional changes continued in Phase 2. During this period, for example, local police authorities were abolished and replaced by elected police commissioners and penal commissioners (2012); • Establishment of the Police College (2012); • Establishment of the National Anti-Crime Agency (2013), which replaces a number of other agencies; • District Court Reform (2013); • Creation of the Family Court (2014); • Creation of a new tribunal to hear major international commercial disputes (2015). There have also been changes driven by the government`s desire to involve private parties and third parties in the work of the justice system. Private sector prisons were first established in 1992, a trend that continued under Labour governments. The principle was extended in 2014 with the creation of a new probation service, which includes private and third sector providers (2014), replacing the former fully public probation service. But the overriding political imperative of Phase 2 was the Cameron governments` desire to cut public spending. This has had a significant impact on the English legal system.
The most obvious effects have been the legal aid system. In this context: • the scope of the legal aid scheme has been further reduced; • the Commission des services juridiques has been dissolved and replaced by the Legal Aid Agency, which operates within a much narrower legal framework; • Salaries for legal counsel have been significantly reduced. In addition to the cuts to legal aid, there have been major changes to the fees that potential litigants must pay to bring an action before the courts and many courts. Some of the fee changes appear to have been introduced both to deter litigants and to raise funds for the system – the fees charged by the Labour Court appear to have had a significant deterrent effect, with a significantly reduced number of cases. However, fees for high-value civil court hearings are clearly designed to cover a significant part of the court service. Even in criminal courts, although no upfront fees are charged, those convicted of crimes must now pay a contribution to the costs of their proceedings. There is a comprehensive review of the number of courthouses needed for the justice system. Many courthouses have already been closed and a significant number of other rarely used buildings are expected to be closed. While Phase 1, as noted above, introduced significant institutional changes, it could be argued that this was not a time when legal practitioners needed to fundamentally change their work practices. Phase 2 is much more demanding from this point of view.
There have been significant financial cuts to legal aid and the lawyers who provide legal aid; the number of legal aid services has decreased; Funding for the Crown Prosecution Service has been reduced, which could lead to an increase in the number of private prosecutions. More litigants are appearing in person before civil courts. The reaction of many practitioners to these developments is simply to regret them and call for the restoration of reduced funding. I start from a more provocative starting point. Cuts in public spending are not necessarily a bad thing. If current practices waste resources, there is no good reason why changes should not be introduced to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Looking ahead So what is likely to happen in the future? An effective legal system is essential to promote the rule of law. Everyone, not just the rich and powerful, should have access to the legal system. The reality is that the rich and powerful will be able to continue to hire lawyers and start legal proceedings more or less as before. It is the less wealthy who need special attention.
I propose here a number of developments that, if developed with vigour and imagination, could ensure that ordinary people can have access to justice – in fact, their access can be improved. It will not be easy. This will require strong leadership from policy makers and the judiciary; It may also be necessary to review some of the decisions taken to see if their impact has been disproportionately negative – for example, the massive increase in legal costs. Improving access to justice 1 Information and communication technologies. While investment in ICT by practitioners has been enormous and has dramatically changed the way lawyers work, investment in information technology in courts has been pitifully slow. A much-vaunted introduction of technological innovation in the courts is currently underway, but – compared to developments in other sectors of the economy – courts and tribunals are still far behind. At present, the focus seems to be on the introduction of information technology in the courts so that files can be loaded electronically.