Introduction
The English legal system forms the foundation of justice and governance in England and Wales, serving as a critical framework for maintaining order and protecting rights within society. For students of criminology, understanding this system and its law-making processes is essential, as it shapes the creation and enforcement of criminal laws that influence patterns of crime, justice, and societal responses. This essay explores the structure of the English legal system, the primary mechanisms of law-making, and their significance within a criminological context. It examines the roles of Parliament, judicial precedent, and secondary influences such as delegated legislation, while considering the strengths and limitations of these processes. By critically engaging with these elements, the essay aims to highlight how law-making impacts the administration of justice and addresses societal issues related to crime and deviance.
The Structure of the English Legal System
The English legal system is rooted in a common law tradition, distinguished by its reliance on judicial decisions and precedents alongside statutory law. It operates within a hierarchy of courts, ranging from lower-tier Magistrates’ Courts, which handle less serious criminal cases, to the Supreme Court, the highest appellate court in the UK for civil and criminal matters (Slapper and Kelly, 2011). This hierarchical structure ensures consistency in legal rulings, as decisions from higher courts bind lower courts under the doctrine of stare decisis (stand by decisions). For criminology, this system is significant because it directly affects how criminal cases are adjudicated and how legal principles are applied to issues such as sentencing or defining offences.
One notable feature is the adversarial nature of the English legal system, where two opposing parties present their cases before an impartial judge or jury. This approach, while promoting rigorous debate, can sometimes prioritise procedural fairness over substantive justice, potentially impacting outcomes in criminal cases (Zander, 2015). For instance, disparities in legal representation may disadvantage certain defendants, raising questions about equality before the law—an area of particular interest in criminological studies of systemic bias and social justice. Overall, the structure reflects a balance between tradition and adaptability, though it is not without limitations in ensuring equitable access to justice.
Parliament as the Primary Law-Making Body
Parliament holds a central role in the English legal system as the supreme law-making authority, embodying the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This means that no court or other body can override statutes passed by Parliament (Dicey, 1885, cited in Elliott and Thomas, 2017). The process of creating legislation involves several stages, including the introduction of a Bill, debates in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and finally, Royal Assent. This rigorous process aims to ensure that laws are thoroughly scrutinised, reflecting democratic principles.
From a criminological perspective, parliamentary law-making is crucial as it defines criminal offences and sanctions through Acts such as the Theft Act 1968 or the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, the process is not without criticism. It can be slow and cumbersome, often struggling to keep pace with emerging issues like cybercrime or evolving social attitudes towards drug offences (Elliott and Thomas, 2017). Furthermore, political influences may shape legislation in ways that prioritise public opinion over evidence-based policy, as seen in debates over punitive sentencing reforms. Despite these limitations, Parliament remains the cornerstone of legal authority, providing a framework within which criminal justice policies are developed.
The Role of Judicial Precedent in Law Making
Judicial precedent, or case law, is another fundamental aspect of the English legal system, allowing judges to create and refine laws through their decisions. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, past rulings by higher courts serve as binding authority for future cases, ensuring predictability and consistency (Slapper and Kelly, 2011). The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court play particularly significant roles in this process, often setting precedents that influence criminal law principles, such as the interpretation of intent in murder cases.
For criminology, the impact of judicial precedent is evident in how legal definitions of crime evolve. A notable example is the case of R v Brown (1993), which addressed the legality of consensual harm in the context of sadomasochistic activities, highlighting tensions between personal autonomy and societal norms. While judicial precedent offers flexibility to adapt to new circumstances, it can also perpetuate outdated principles if higher courts are reluctant to overturn past decisions. This rigidity sometimes limits the system’s ability to address contemporary criminological challenges, such as changing perceptions of victimless crimes. Nevertheless, it remains a vital mechanism for interpreting and sometimes reforming statutory law.
Delegated Legislation and Other Influences
Beyond parliamentary statutes and judicial precedent, delegated legislation plays a significant role in law-making. This involves the delegation of authority to ministers or local bodies to create detailed rules and regulations, often under the framework of a parent Act. For instance, regulations concerning police powers or prison conditions are frequently established through such secondary legislation (Zander, 2015). This process allows for quicker responses to specific issues, which is particularly relevant in criminology when addressing urgent matters like public safety or new forms of criminal activity.
However, delegated legislation raises concerns about democratic accountability, as it is subject to less parliamentary scrutiny than primary legislation. Critics argue that this can lead to inconsistencies or overreach in criminal justice policies (Elliott and Thomas, 2017). Additionally, other influences, such as European Union law (prior to Brexit) and international human rights standards, have historically shaped English law, particularly in areas like fair trial rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Post-Brexit, the extent of such external influence remains a point of debate, underscoring the dynamic nature of law-making processes.
Conclusion
In summary, the English legal system and its law-making processes represent a complex interplay of parliamentary sovereignty, judicial precedent, and delegated authority. Each mechanism contributes uniquely to the creation and enforcement of laws, with significant implications for criminology in terms of defining crime, administering justice, and addressing societal challenges. While parliamentary legislation provides a democratic foundation, judicial precedent offers adaptability, and delegated legislation ensures practical implementation, each has limitations—whether in terms of responsiveness, consistency, or accountability. For criminology students, these processes illuminate the broader relationship between law, power, and social control, raising critical questions about fairness and efficacy in the justice system. Moving forward, it is imperative to consider how these mechanisms can evolve to address emerging issues like technological crime or shifting societal values, ensuring that the legal system remains both just and relevant.
References
- Elliott, C. and Thomas, R. (2017) English Legal System. 19th edn. Pearson Education Limited.
- Slapper, G. and Kelly, D. (2011) The English Legal System. 12th edn. Routledge.
- Zander, M. (2015) The Law-Making Process. 7th edn. Hart Publishing.
