In one sense, yes. They’re the first instance court for large and complex civil actions, and have a fairly small appellate jurisdiction as well as judicially reviewing the acts of inferior courts and officials. The courts above them are strictly appellate. The actual route that any given bit of business takes can get a bit weird, though, as the various different jurisdictions have grown up piecemeal.
For example, a criminal appeal from the Magistrates’ Courts (minor crime) lies to the Crown Court (more serious crime). But if the appeal is strictly on a point of law then the appellant can ask for a ‘case’ to be stated to the High Court’s Administrative Court. And it’s also possible to apply to the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction for judicial review of either the Magistrates’ or Crown Courts. But appeals from the Crown Court handling serious crime (trials on indictment) go to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.
On the plus side, that means that there’s normally at least some route for an egregious decision to be put right. And as the judges in the higher courts essentially carry the ‘rights’ of lower court judges as well, it’s not unknown for a panel of the Court of Appeal to instantly reform itself as part of the High Court mid-hearing if it feels a case would have been better brought there. Or even, occasionally, have one of the justices act as a District Judge (Magistrate’s Court) to do something reserved for the lowest tier of judges.
The attempt at the original “joke” was made based on a premise that the victims were not adults, but children under the age of 18, as has been surely reported everywhere. So, making a joke about a possible rapist by using pedophilia as the point of humor.
At the risk of hijacking this thread… the level of knowledge in this thread prompts me to ask (perhaps again): Can the monarch be prosecuted for any crime? I’ve been lead to believe not, which then leads to: If the heir apparent kills their parent, they are automatically monarch. Are they now unprosecutable? Like what keeps Charles from shiving 'Liz to take the crown?
But I also have to say: Bravo! for the great thread. But now I have a sad that this UK law nerdfight being the best thing to happen to me today.
There have been rumblings about that in recent years, even before the creation of the Supreme Court:
In 2004, the Blair government tried to remove the right to appeal to the courts from decisions by the asylum and immigration tribunal (a so-called “ouster clause”): Lord Donaldson, a retired Master of the Rolls (i.e. the second or third most senior judge in England & Wales, depending on how you reckon it), believed that if the relevant part of the law passed, the judiciary would say “We [the judges] are an independent estate of the realm and it’s not open to the legislature to put us out of business. And so we shall simply ignore your ouster clause.” The clause (and the incipient constitutional crisis) eventually died in the House of Lords, after the Lord Chancellor (who held the anomalous position of being both the head of the judiciary in England & Wales and a government minister) put his name down to speak against it.
In 2005, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (the precursor of the Supreme Court) ruled that it had jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the 2004 Hunting Act, which had been passed via the mechanism in the Parliament Act 1949 that allows the Commons to force a bill into law without the consent of the House of Lords.
Every court has the power it can see executed. That High Court had the right to have the King executed because that is what they did and therefor they could.
You get this a lot with royal and feudal powers, it is not about what power you have but what you can get away with doing.
As a juvenile rape and incest survivor, I kind of feel like it gets to a point where you can’t help but laugh for crying, and we should allow for “punching up”. Nothing I hate more than being told as a victim I can vent, but “not like that”.
The absurdity of Andrew hiding away from accusations and his unwillingness to address the subject that is as plain as the nose on one’s face was the point of humor, and I find it funny because it’s true.
Surely you realize that if such a situation was planned, they would use a decoy (a mature person with a juvenile appearance) just like they do with internet pedophiles. And it would probably work.
Younger folks are at a point in their lives where they are asked to take on more responsibility as they grow older. The age limit imposed by the law is simply there as a boundary in order to make the determination according to law. Don’t patronize young people. They’re often more mature in some ways than you may think, despite trying to push boundaries.
