Do tribunals have inquisitorial powers? In England, tribunals are intended to be more informal and therefore accessible venues of justice where the parties cannot be expected to conduct proceedings with full legal competence. In a pure adversarial system which England is mostly, judges are a passive audience largely precluded from making proactive inquiries (i.e. inquisitorial powers). Is it that in order to bridge the gap and enable tribunals to have more just outcomes, tribunals' judges are afforded greater latitude to exercise inquisitorial roles than judges in courts?
In answer to the queation in the OP's title, although it isn't actually a &quot;tribunal&quot; the Coroner’s Court is inquisitorial: An inquest is a fact-finding inquiry to establish who has died, how, when and where the death occurred. It is not a trial – no one is on trial in a Coroner’s Court. Unlike other Courts, whether civil or criminal, there is no prosecution or defence. The Coroner’s jurisdiction is inquisitorial rather than adversarial or accusatorial. Source
The constitutional provision quoted in the question has been interpreted to require that a jury trial be available to a person accused of crime by the US Federal Government. Then accused is free to waive this right, and be tried by a judge only if s/he so chooses. The accuse is also free to waive the right to a trial altogether, and plead guilty (or &quot;no contest&quot; which waives a trail without an admission of guilt). The provision could reasonably be interpreted to require that if there is a trial, it be by jury. But I don't see how it could reasonably be read to require trials in all cases, and forbid guilty pleas.
Parliament in the UK is sovereign: Parliament [is] the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. If parliament passed a law saying that it was a crime for "a black American woman sat at the front of the bus" and provided that it repealed all existing laws that would invalidate that law (e.g. the European Charter of Human Rights); then there is no defence to that crime if the prosecution proves the elements beyond reasonable doubt i.e. that you are a) black, b) American, c) a woman and d) sat at the front of the bus. In the UK there is no higher law that can be appealed to like a constitution. Over the years, UK parliaments have passed laws limiting their sovereignty, however, any current or future parliament could (in theory) repeal those limits. Just like the USA could (also in theory) repeal the Bill of Rights amendments to their constitution (or even replace the Constitution as a whole); albeit the process is different and less likely to succeed. The limitations on this are political, not legal.
No Parliament is sovereign: Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
It's hard to know why people choose the venues they choose. But, the UK is known for having very plaintiff-friendly libel law (although less-so now). Libel tourism was much more feasible in 1996, when David Irving brought his suit. But, as of 2014, "claimants wanting to sue defendants who do not live in Europe will have to prove that England is the most appropriate place for the case." (New Law Makes Suing for Libel Harder in England) Further, in the U.S., the SPEECH Act of 2010 makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the U.S. unless the defendant would have been found liable even under U.S. Law.
The reference to &quot;most junior counsel present&quot; does literally mean the most recently qualified barrister who happens to be in the court. That is confirmed by Polter's response: &quot;I was only called last term!&quot; The story takes place in 1860. By this time, it was common for the court to assign a barrister who happened to be in court to conduct the defence of an accused person. According to Bentley, English Criminal Justice in the 19th Century (1998), p 110–111: Assignment was a practice developed by the judges as a means of ensuring that prisoners facing grave charges did not go undefended for want of means. The judge would ask one of the counsel present in court to undertake the prisoner's defence without fee, a request never in practice refused … During the debates on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill of 1834, one of the arguments used against the assignment of counsel clause which it contained was that the judges already had power to assign counsel, and that counsel never refused to act … So far as one can judge from trial reports, assignment of counsel to poor prisoners in felony cases was, and remained, a rare occurrence during the late 1820s and 1830s, but became increasingly common during the 1840s and 1850s. But I can't find any historical analogue to Polter's virtuosic success in prosecuting a &quot;dock brief&quot; on behalf of the Crown. As Bentley explains, the practice of assigning counsel evolved for the benefit of the accused, not the Crown. And the barrister assigned was not invariably the &quot;most junior counsel present&quot; (p 114): The selection was made from amongst those in court not already engaged in the case. Sometimes the judge would call on the most senior counsel in court. Sometimes one of the barristers present in court would volunteer his services. Occasionally the accused would be invited to choose from the barristers in court. Modern practice The scenario in the story, where the advocate briefed to appear is in another court, having assumed (or hoped) that the present matter would not be reached in the judge's list, remains common in busy criminal courts throughout the common law world. Judges have various ways of dealing with this situation, where a hearing cannot proceed efficiently because of a lack of legal representation. Some matters, such as hearings at which an accused person must decide whether to plead guilty or not guilty, or make scheduling arrangements for trial, or be sentenced for a minor offence, are still routinely handled by lawyers who receive instructions on the day of the hearing. This is usually formalised through systems like the duty solicitors scheme operated by the Legal Aid Agency. When duty lawyers are unavailable, it is not unheard of for judges and magistrates to ask counsel physically in the courtroom to provide limited pro bono assistance to an unrepresented party. Such requests are limited to the kind of representation ordinarily provided by duty lawyers, and would not extend to conduct of a jury trial with zero preparation. As well as being significantly more demanding due to the greater complexity of modern criminal law practice, this would today be considered a breach of the right to a fair hearing. I have personally seen lawyers present in the courtroom, in suburban magistrates' courts around Australia, appointed to represent defendants at procedural hearings when there is no duty lawyer available. Lawyers volunteer for this as part of their professional duty to the administration of justice, or even as a way to find new clients. However, this never applies to a prosecution brief. At worst, an irritated judge might force another prosecutor in court for unrelated cases to account for their colleague's absence, or dismiss the case for want of prosecution.
At the time of writing, there 642 various UK Procedure Rules and amendments. These are all secondary legislation (discussed here). Taking the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 as an example, these Rules are made under primary legislation found at section 69 of the Courts Act 2003: 69 Criminal Procedure Rules (1)There are to be rules of court (to be called “Criminal Procedure Rules”) governing the practice and procedure to be followed in the criminal courts. (2)Criminal Procedure Rules are to be made by a committee known as the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. (3)The power to make Criminal Procedure Rules includes power to make different provision for different cases or different areas, including different provision— (a)for a specified court or description of courts, or (b)for specified descriptions of proceedings or a specified jurisdiction. (4)Any power to make Criminal Procedure Rules is to be exercised with a view to securing that— (a)the criminal justice system is accessible, fair and efficient, and (b)the rules are both simple and simply expressed
Barristers are advocates, and their other roles fall out of that core role. I think of it this way: your solicitor takes care of your legal risk; your barrister is the 'big gun' you bring in for specific important legal advice and to represent you in person. I'll give you my experience from the perspective of working in a large government agency. For us, 'barrister' often equates to 'Queen's Counsel' (now called 'Senior Counsel'), which is a particularly senior barrister. I am also speaking from Australia. We have the same split profession as the UK, but there are probably differences. You generally don't stop using a solicitor and start using a barrister. Rather, you have a solicitor the whole way through and then you engage a barrister through your solicitor. You can engage a barrister directly, e.g. if you have in-house counsel, but it is not common to do so. Even if you have in-house counsel, you will usually engage more specialised external solicitors to handle litigation. The barrister's role is generally to (1) provide advice on specific issues (after the solicitors have sifted the evidence and provided a brief to the barrister) including advising on your prospects in particular litigation and (2) represent you in court i.e. write submissions and speak to the court. It is not uncommon to have a barristers represent you in proceedings other than a trial (if you have the financial resources to afford a barrister). For example, a barrister may represent you in mediation or may accompany you to an examination by some regulatory authority. (Furthermore, a regulatory authority may even hire a barrister to question you, since barristers are often good at that based on their in-court role; or you and the party you are having a dispute with might appoint a barrister as the arbitrator or mediator.) You may have a barrister you prefer to use; more likely, however, your solicitor would know barristers and would recommend an appropriate one. Barristers are specialised so you would use a different barrister for a tax dispute, contractual dispute, employee dispute, etc. An organisation large enough to sustain constant legal disputes would have a number of barristers that it would go to as and when they were needed, on the basis of their particular skills and availability. There is no such thing as a firm of barristers. Each barrister is independent. A barrister's office will be in 'chambers', which is an organisation that leases office space and hires clerks to manage member barristers' business. But the barristers in a chambers are not in business together as members of a firm of solicitors are. Barristers are proud of their independence, and they all want to be appointed as judges so they have to appear impartial. To further illustrate how you might use a barrister: sometimes you get legal advice from a barrister and you cannot read the advice. You can see the words but it's gibberish. Your solicitor will interpret it for you.