The Harrovian Justice System
Harrovian Justice employs the use of the rule of law and the system of common law.
Harrovian common law has been called "codified reason" in that the common law is taken to be a sum of what is customary, whether enforced by the state or not, to the people of the Harrowlands. Usages and customs that have been practised by the Harrovian people forever are enshrined in the common law, and what is taken to be part of the common law is nothing more or less than what is the accepted immemorial and universal usage and reason of the people. Thus, stealing another man's property is taken to be a wrong by immemorial and universal Harrovian usage and reason, therefore it is a wrong at common law; a man is taken to be in the wrong when his negligence causes some damage to another man's property, and so the common law recognises, and so the victim may claim compensation at common law. Nothing that is not custom to the Harrovian people is common law, and thus the employment of juries to decide cases (by doing so affirming that a particular case either is or is not consistent with the common law) is an integral part of the Harrovian justice system.
Judicial precedent is the process by which common law is established, in courts’ decisions of cases. Judges are obliged to follow the decisions made by judges in earlier cases in courts of equal or higher rank when the factual circumstances are essentially the same. This process is to ensure that cases are decided in a fair and consistent manner.
Harrovian common law has an ancient pedigree, probably long predating the existence of the Kingdom of Harrow itself. Testament to this is that, before Erik of Folstag, the Viking usurper of the Harrovian throne in 1012 AD, and his dynasty's work in nationalising the common law, law in the Harrowlands was local and customary, applied by local assemblies called ‘moots’, with law differing from one community to another. Trials were heard in local courts – Hundred Courts and Shire Courts. It is unknown how old the pedigree of the practice of customary law is in the Harrowlands, though it is similar to customary legal traditions in other primitive Germanic societies.
Beginning from Erik of Folstag's time, the Harrovian justice system developed under the influence of the Viking and Uppsalan kings, whose court and institutions started to become Norman-influenced after the Norman Conquest of Chelta in 1066. A centralised, national system of courts had developed by the 13th Century, with judges travelling from community to community administering the same law and legal procedure for all the land.
Judges are bound by the past decisions of courts of equal or higher rank, while the decisions of courts of lower rank are persuasive, but not binding. Judges are also bound by Statute Law (law made by Parliament) when it is relevant, as statute law is supreme to and overwrites common law.
The Adversary System of Trial is used in the Harrowlands, which gives distinct roles to three groups of legal personnel – judges, the jury and lawyers.
The main role of the judge is to ensure that the rules or procedure and evidence are followed and to oversee the procedures to ensure all parties receive a fair trial by the law. In addition, the judge is required to:
- Instruct the jury on matters of law
- Decide and rule on any points of law debated
- Summarise the case for the jury
- To ensure that the burden of proof has been discharged
- To sentence the accused in criminal cases and to assess damages in civil cases
- To discharge the jury
- To hear and determine appeals
The division between solicitors and barristers is between the office lawyer (solicitor) and the courtroom lawyer (barrister). The solicitor discusses the case with the client and collects all relevant facts and data, which he prepares as a brief to give to the barrister. The barrister uses the information to present the case to the court and argue to the best of his ability the client’s case.
Trials are distinct between criminal cases and civil cases, where in the former the Crown (the state) brings legal proceedings against the defendant for breach of law while in the latter private parties bring suits against each other for civil disputes. Criminal law makes a distinction between wickedries and misdemesnours, the former being more serious offences requiring indictment by grand jury, and heard by judge and jury, while the latter being less serious offences that may be heard summarily by a magistrate, although trial by jury may be arranged at the request of the defendant. All Civil cases include tort law (yemelessness, trespass, nuisance, defamation etc.) contract law, wills, trusts, property disputes, administrative disputes, and the like. In criminal law, the arbiter of fact (the jury or magistrate) must be convinced one way or another "beyond reasonable doubt" with the onus of proof resting on the Crown, while in civil law the arbiter of fact (judge or jury) must be convinced "on the balance of probabilities" with the onus of proof resting on the plaintiff to prove entitlement to the claim.
Harrovian common law has been called "codified reason" in that the common law is taken to be a sum of what is customary, whether enforced by the state or not, to the people of the Harrowlands. Usages and customs that have been practised by the Harrovian people forever are enshrined in the common law, and what is taken to be part of the common law is nothing more or less than what is the accepted immemorial and universal usage and reason of the people. Thus, stealing another man's property is taken to be a wrong by immemorial and universal Harrovian usage and reason, therefore it is a wrong at common law; a man is taken to be in the wrong when his negligence causes some damage to another man's property, and so the common law recognises, and so the victim may claim compensation at common law. Nothing that is not custom to the Harrovian people is common law, and thus the employment of juries to decide cases (by doing so affirming that a particular case either is or is not consistent with the common law) is an integral part of the Harrovian justice system.
Judicial precedent is the process by which common law is established, in courts’ decisions of cases. Judges are obliged to follow the decisions made by judges in earlier cases in courts of equal or higher rank when the factual circumstances are essentially the same. This process is to ensure that cases are decided in a fair and consistent manner.
Harrovian common law has an ancient pedigree, probably long predating the existence of the Kingdom of Harrow itself. Testament to this is that, before Erik of Folstag, the Viking usurper of the Harrovian throne in 1012 AD, and his dynasty's work in nationalising the common law, law in the Harrowlands was local and customary, applied by local assemblies called ‘moots’, with law differing from one community to another. Trials were heard in local courts – Hundred Courts and Shire Courts. It is unknown how old the pedigree of the practice of customary law is in the Harrowlands, though it is similar to customary legal traditions in other primitive Germanic societies.
Beginning from Erik of Folstag's time, the Harrovian justice system developed under the influence of the Viking and Uppsalan kings, whose court and institutions started to become Norman-influenced after the Norman Conquest of Chelta in 1066. A centralised, national system of courts had developed by the 13th Century, with judges travelling from community to community administering the same law and legal procedure for all the land.
Judges are bound by the past decisions of courts of equal or higher rank, while the decisions of courts of lower rank are persuasive, but not binding. Judges are also bound by Statute Law (law made by Parliament) when it is relevant, as statute law is supreme to and overwrites common law.
The Adversary System of Trial is used in the Harrowlands, which gives distinct roles to three groups of legal personnel – judges, the jury and lawyers.
The main role of the judge is to ensure that the rules or procedure and evidence are followed and to oversee the procedures to ensure all parties receive a fair trial by the law. In addition, the judge is required to:
- Instruct the jury on matters of law
- Decide and rule on any points of law debated
- Summarise the case for the jury
- To ensure that the burden of proof has been discharged
- To sentence the accused in criminal cases and to assess damages in civil cases
- To discharge the jury
- To hear and determine appeals
The division between solicitors and barristers is between the office lawyer (solicitor) and the courtroom lawyer (barrister). The solicitor discusses the case with the client and collects all relevant facts and data, which he prepares as a brief to give to the barrister. The barrister uses the information to present the case to the court and argue to the best of his ability the client’s case.
Trials are distinct between criminal cases and civil cases, where in the former the Crown (the state) brings legal proceedings against the defendant for breach of law while in the latter private parties bring suits against each other for civil disputes. Criminal law makes a distinction between wickedries and misdemesnours, the former being more serious offences requiring indictment by grand jury, and heard by judge and jury, while the latter being less serious offences that may be heard summarily by a magistrate, although trial by jury may be arranged at the request of the defendant. All Civil cases include tort law (yemelessness, trespass, nuisance, defamation etc.) contract law, wills, trusts, property disputes, administrative disputes, and the like. In criminal law, the arbiter of fact (the jury or magistrate) must be convinced one way or another "beyond reasonable doubt" with the onus of proof resting on the Crown, while in civil law the arbiter of fact (judge or jury) must be convinced "on the balance of probabilities" with the onus of proof resting on the plaintiff to prove entitlement to the claim.
Juries and Grand Juries
The jury is a group of 12 citizens randomly selected which satisfies the ancient common law legal doctrine of ‘trial by one’s peers’ used as the arbiter of fact for wickedries, misdemesnours (at the request of the defendant) and most civil disputes. It also acts as a safeguard against corruption in the legal system. The jury’s function is to decide the facts of the case, and in criminal cases to reach a verdict (guilty or not guilty) with the evidence presented to them. The jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in reaching a verdict, which must be unanimous of the jury. A judge and jury’s decision on a matter of dispute in court is called an adjudication.
A grand jury is a larger panel of 24 citizens that decides whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge of indictment to go ahead to a proper criminal trial, and decides whether a certain charge of indictment is appropriate. This takes place in a committal trial the Court of Petty Sessions, in which generally not all of the witnesses and the evidence are required to be presented. In such a trial, if the presiding magistrate or Justice of the Peace decides that there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial, he will issue a bill of indictment which must be agreed upon by the grand jury also sitting in the committal trial. The grand jury may decide that a bill of indictment was inappropriate according to the evidence (i.e. may change the charge) or may reject the bill of indictment entirely, deciding that there is insufficient evidence for a trial to go ahead upon any indictment. Only a majority verdict, not a uninanimous verdict, is required for a grand jury's decision. The grand jury may also issue subpoenas (even upon Crown prosecutors) in order to investigate criminal activity they know about, question witnesses and pursue an investigation wherever it leads (sometimes leading to a "runaway grand jury"). Grand juries can write reports and ask the judge to make the report public. The grand jury is not, in fact, part of the judiciary or judicial branch of government like a normal jury of 12 (petit jury), but is a separate institution that protects the individual from prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Grand juries serve the public in other ways outside the judicial sphere: they can make a presentment - a public report of the grand jury's investigative activity that makes known to the public criminal activity, especially criminal misconduct committed by government officials, Crown prosecutors and even judges; private citizens - members of the public - can also bring criminal activity to the attention of a grand jury for investigation.
A grand jury is a larger panel of 24 citizens that decides whether there is sufficient evidence for a charge of indictment to go ahead to a proper criminal trial, and decides whether a certain charge of indictment is appropriate. This takes place in a committal trial the Court of Petty Sessions, in which generally not all of the witnesses and the evidence are required to be presented. In such a trial, if the presiding magistrate or Justice of the Peace decides that there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial, he will issue a bill of indictment which must be agreed upon by the grand jury also sitting in the committal trial. The grand jury may decide that a bill of indictment was inappropriate according to the evidence (i.e. may change the charge) or may reject the bill of indictment entirely, deciding that there is insufficient evidence for a trial to go ahead upon any indictment. Only a majority verdict, not a uninanimous verdict, is required for a grand jury's decision. The grand jury may also issue subpoenas (even upon Crown prosecutors) in order to investigate criminal activity they know about, question witnesses and pursue an investigation wherever it leads (sometimes leading to a "runaway grand jury"). Grand juries can write reports and ask the judge to make the report public. The grand jury is not, in fact, part of the judiciary or judicial branch of government like a normal jury of 12 (petit jury), but is a separate institution that protects the individual from prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Grand juries serve the public in other ways outside the judicial sphere: they can make a presentment - a public report of the grand jury's investigative activity that makes known to the public criminal activity, especially criminal misconduct committed by government officials, Crown prosecutors and even judges; private citizens - members of the public - can also bring criminal activity to the attention of a grand jury for investigation.