skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 64799 Find in a Library
Title: ENGLAND - COURT ADMINISTRATION - THE CASE FOR A JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Author(s): I R SCOTT
Corporate Author: University of Birmingham
Institute of Judicial Admin
United Kingdom
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 20
Sponsoring Agency: Birmingham University
Birmingham, B15 2TT, England
University of Birmingham
Birmingham, England
Sale Source: Birmingham University
P O Box 363
Birmingham, B15 2TT,
United Kingdom
Language: English
Country: United Kingdom
Annotation: ENGLAND'S STRUCTURE FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION IS COMPARED TO AMERICA'S, AND A JUDICIAL COUNCIL IS RECOMMENDED FOR ENGLAND.
Abstract: THE ENGLISH COURTS ACT OF 1971 GAVE POWER TO THE LORD CHANCELLOR (HEAD OF JUDICIARY) TO SCHEDULE SITTINGS OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE CROWN COURT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY . THE LORD CHANCELLOR WAS FURTHER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SYSTEM OF COURT ADMINISTRATION. THE SYSTEM OF COURT ADMINISTRATION THUS ESTABLISHED IS AN EXECUTIVE STRUCTURE UNDER MINISTERIAL CONTROL. THIS WAS DONE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE COURT ADMINISTRATION IS A MANAEMENT TASK THAT CONSISTS PRIMARILY OF NONJUDICIAL FUNCTIONS. THE LORD CHANCELLOR IS PRIMARILY A POLITICAL FIGURE, AND AS A MINISTER OF THE CROWN, HE IS READILY TREATED AS SUCH BY THE NONJUDICIAL PERSONNEL IN THE COURT SERVICE. HE IS, HOWEVER, A POLITICALLY WEAK FIGURE, UNLIKELY TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE EXPECTATIONS OF EITHER A COURT SERVICE PERSONNEL OR THE JUDICIARY, SINCE HE IS NOT A WORKING JUDGE AND DOES NOT FUNCTION WITHIN THE POWER CENTERS OF THE JUDICIARY. THIS SEPERATION OF EXECUTIVE FROM JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS DOES NOT EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES. JUDGES ASSUME ULTIMATE AUTHORITY FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION ACCORDING TO JUDICIAL HIERARCHAL AUTHORITY, WITH COURT ADMINISTRATORS IMPLEMENTING JUDICIAL POLICY. WHILE A STRICT APPLICATION OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM COULD NOT WORK IN ENGLAND BECAUSE OF ITS JUDICIAL STRUCTURE, JUDICIARY INVOLVEMENT IN COURT ADMINISTRATION COULD BE INCREASED IN ENGLAND THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JUDICIAL COUNCIL COMPOSED OF JUDGES FROM ALL RANKS OF THE JUDICIARY. THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL WOULD SET POLICY FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION, SET COURT RULES, AND OTHERWISE MANAGE ALL PHASES OF COURT ADMINISTRATION. MEMBERS OF THE COURT SERVICE WOULD BE THE STAFF ARM OF THE COUNCIL. (RCB)
Index Term(s): Comparative analysis; Court management; Critiques; England; Judicial councils and conferences; Separation of powers; United States of America
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64799

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.