How do lower level (county or magistrates) courts in the City of London differ in their jurisdictions from those in the surrounding boroughs? Because the City of London has certain aspects of municipal autonomy, are there restrictions on their equivalence with the rest of the county or magistrate court system? In general any county court can hear or even transfer cases between one another. Does this differ at all for City of London located courts? Similarly if the nearest magistrate’s court to the location of a crime is in the City of London, but the crime scene itself is just without, does this have any implications on the magistrate’s court in which the crime can be prosecuted?
There is currently no difference, but there have been substantial differences in the past. Since the Courts Act 1971 (specifically s.42), the City of London has had its own county court that is on the same basis as other county courts. It is called &quot;The Mayor's and City of London Court&quot; for historical reasons, as that was the name of the court that was the previous closest equivalent. The 1971 Act establishes that the new version of the court has the same jurisdiction as any other county court, thus taking away any special privileges which the old version had. It was already almost like a county court by virtue of the City of London (Courts) Act 1964. Moreover, since the Crime and Courts Act 2013, there are no longer separate county courts, but one enormous one that sits in several places. That includes the City of London location. In criminal matters, the Crown Court (established under the same 1971 Act) is logically also one enormous court. When it sits in the City of London, it is known as the &quot;Central Criminal Court&quot; (Senior Courts Act 1981, s.8(3)), but is still the same court. It does not have any special status with respect to the City, being meant to handle cases from all of Greater London as well. Formerly, it had to operate a complex system of separate juries for City cases, but nowadays that is all uniform. For magistrates' courts, the Courts Act 2003 created a single jurisdiction for all of England and Wales. That is divided into &quot;local justice areas&quot;, one of which is the City of London - these replace the old &quot;petty sessional divisions&quot;. There are no special rules for the City. Applying the general rules for a particular criminal case would result in it being dealt with in the place where the offence is alleged to have happened, or where the accused lives, or where the witnesses mostly live, or &quot;where other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with&quot; (s.30(5)(d)). Perhaps soon, powers under the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 will be exercised to abolish local justice areas (s.45), enabling even more flexibility with the assignment of cases to courts. In particular, this is meant to make it easer to shift cases around depending on local workload, or on which court location is genuinely most convenient in all the circumstances. The Act also removes (ss. 46 and 47) the current special rules about the City of London court premises being provided by the City authorities, rather than by the Ministry of Justice which handles all the other ones. Formerly, there have been plenty of law courts for the City, or its livery companies, or St Paul's Cathedral (the consistory court had criminal jurisdiction over clergy), or the &quot;compters&quot; (debtors' prisons). Some of these still exist in a ceremonial capacity but do not function as courts. For example, the aldermen of the City can meet as the &quot;Court of Husting&quot;, which was formerly a functioning law court but nowadays has the sole purpose of enrolling certain deeds, and hasn't done that since 1978. There are still two Sherriffs, nominally associated with the Poultry Compter and Wood Street Compter, but their courts have not existed since 1867. Some of the City's officers have residual ceremonial connections with the Old Bailey or other institutions, but these have no practical impact on the work of the courts.
The Professional And Lay Judges In The Scene Murder trials in Japan take place in a regional court called the &quot;high court&quot; which is one level below the Japanese Supreme Court. Trials of very serious crimes in Japan (crimes punishable by death, life imprisonment, or very long sentences in prison, not just ordinary felonies) are tried by a mixed panel of three professional high court court judges and six lay people who are sometimes described as jurors but are probably better described as &quot;lay judges&quot;. The law providing for this kind of trial was passed in the year 2004 and first implemented in the year 2009. Many European countries in the civil law tradition have a similar process. While proceedings would mostly be in the court room, a court view when all of the professional and lay judges go to the scene of the crime or some other key venue where important facts happened would be far more common in Japan than in the U.S. After hearing the evidence presented at the trial, which is managed by the presiding judge of the three professional judges, all three judges and the six lay judges deliberate together as a single panel regarding the guilt or innocence verdict which would be rendered in the case. This is in contrast to juries in common law countries where the jury is independent of the judge, makes the ultimate verdict decision without deliberating with the judge, and interacts with the judge only via jury instructions and reception of their verdict. Judges In Other Kinds Of Cases If this had been a serious civil case or a felony case not serious enough to give rise to a lay judge trial or an appeal of a lower court ruling, instead of a very serious criminal case, it would have been heard only by the three professional judges without the six lay judges. More serious cases are heard by more senior professional judges from the high court, and less serious cases are heard by more junior professional judges from a district court which is below the high court but above the summary courts (and marginally superior to the almost equal in status family courts which are staffed by more junior professional judges as well). If it had been a serious misdemeanor or intermediate stakes civil case, it would have been heard by a single professional district court judge acting alone. Trials of very minor criminal cases and civil lawsuits are heard by a single judge acting alone without any lay judges, who is not admitted as members of the judicial profession and might not even be legally trained, who is really closer to what we would call &quot;justices of the peace&quot; in the United States. This position is often translated as &quot;summary court judge.&quot; The Judicial Occupation And The Selection Of Lay Judges In Japan Japanese judges belong to a separate occupation than lawyers and prosecutors that staffs the judicial system of Japan. Basically, they start in family court or in the intermediate level court of general jurisdiction court called district court, right out of college, hearing smaller cases alone, and more serious cases in panels with justices of the peace or family court judges in a three judge panel. These panels also hear appeals from civil judgments of summary court judges. Then, they work their way up the judicial hierarchy based upon seniority and merit. Mid-career judges are in courts called &quot;high courts&quot; that handle most serious matters in the first instance as trial courts, appeals from cases heard by junior judges from the level of courts below them, and appeals in criminal cases from the rulings of summary court judges. The most senior and meritorious and respected judges, of course, are the fifteen judges on the Japanese Supreme Court. For the most part, appointments and promotions are similar to those of other civil servants, rather than being political. Lay judges are selected in a manner somewhat similar to the way common law country jurors are selected, although, as far as I know, the prosecution and defense have less of a say over who serves as a lay judge on a panel and most people called to serve as lay judges will actually end up doing so (in contrast to the very high rates of disqualification and preemptory challenges in common law juries for a serious case like a murder trial). The Professional Status Of The Lawyers In This Scene Incidentally, the legal profession of the prosecutors and the legal professional of the defense attorneys would be different as well. Like judges, prosecutors are civil servants with their own separate professional qualification (although judges, lawyers, and prosecutors have essentially the same academic curriculum in college). Private sector lawyers like the defense counsel in the picture belong to the main licensed occupation for lawyers which is in some respects more similar to that of barristers in the U.K. than to U.S. lawyers, both because there are so few of them and because of their typically more trial oriented practices. Other Kinds Of Legally Trained People In Japan Japan, like many civil law countries, has legally trained notaries who handle a lot of transactional work including drafting the legal instruments involved as a third-party neutral who also has tasks that overlap with government officials who keep official records. Finally, like many civil law countries, and to a lesser extent like solicitors in the U.K. before that profession was formally regulated there, many people major in law as undergraduates in college but never take the professional examinations to become a lawyer, a prosecutor, or a judge. Instead, these people typically end up working in managerial jobs in a business with a status akin to an investment banker or finance professional or realtor in the U.S., but with no formal occupational credential other than their college diploma. The Clerk And The Nature Of The Trial Court Record In front of them is what seems to be the clerk, recording everything. The clerk is probably taking detailed notes as an aid to the judges and lay judges in their deliberations, but unlike a common law criminal trial, verbatim transcripts and records of the proceeding are not maintained (or at least, have no special evidentiary status). The clerk is not a direct analog to a U.S. style court reporter who takes dictation of everything that is said word for word. If there is a dispute regarding the facts found at trial on appeal, at the first tier direct appeal of a conviction, a five judge Japanese appellate court panel of the fifteen judge Japanese Supreme Court would hear new evidence on the matters about which there were allegedly mistaken findings of fact by the trial court of first instance with new witness testimony and the same or new exhibits, rather than simply reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court as final and complete. Sometimes an appeal initially referred to a five judge panel of the Japanese Supreme Court would be reheard by the &quot;Grand Panel&quot; of all fifteen Japanese Supreme Court judges, in which case, the findings of fact of the appellate panel judges are conclusive and binding on the grand panel Japanese Supreme Court which is limited to resolving legal issues.
How deterministic is the legal system? It depends. And less than we might wish. It depends on the case. How complex is the fact pattern? How strong is the evidence? How clear is the law? How compelling are the legal precedents? Questions of that nature. The only generalization I might make would be that "lower level" cases seem more deterministic than "higher level" cases. By higher level, I mean those heard by a supreme court making constitutional decisions. Here is a web site that has created a prediction market out of supreme court cases. Many have written on this topic. Read this answer. It is an excellent treatise on the subjectivity of the legal system. Written by a real attorney. Read this answer too. My advice: If you seek a deterministic system, don't look to the legal one.
You should contact your local London borough if you wish to lodge a complaint (and you never know, you might get a different result this time). Depending on the nature of work being carried out, and the level of noise, this may fall within either s.60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 or possibly under Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if it is deemed a Statutory Nuisance Taking the Royal Borough of Greenwich as an example, they say here: General construction work should be restricted to the following hours: Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm Saturdays 8am to 1pm Noisy work is prohibited on Sundays and bank holidays Therefore it seems the 8am start is allowed. As for the noise levels, independent readings will be required to see if your figure of 80db is accurate but if it is, and continuing with Greenwich as an example, it may be over the permitted levels stated at 6.3 of Greenwich's Code of Practice - assuming that the builders fall within the definition of conducting &quot;major construction and civil engineering works&quot;. I have not checked many other boroughs, but the above is consistent with those that I have.
Why do you expect different courts to determine different laws in the same way? The Czech and UK laws that implement the GDPR are necessary different because they are the products of different legislative and legal traditions and are written in different languages. The differences may be minor but they will exist. Particular cases will have different factual and legal nuances and be interpreted by different courts with very different judicial traditions. Czech courts set no precedents in UK courts and vice-versa. It’s no surprise that there will be different outcomes. Even jurisdictions with much closer legal traditions like US Federal Circuit Courts and Australian states often have divergent precedents on similar (or the same) legislation.
Say I build myself a faraday cage/wave screen around my house, potentially resulting in poor nework coverage for my neighbours. Questions about land property and constructing permits apart, can I be sued for that? By the network operator? by the neighbours? In most countries, the use of the radio spectrum is regulated (who may send what on which frequency, at which power, etc.). As part of these regulations it is usually forbidden to interfere with the reception of radio waves. So if what you do causes your neighbours to have reception problems, then yes, that will most likely be illegal. In France, the government agency responsible for these problems is ARCEP (Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes). If someone notices reception problems, they can complain to ARCEP, as explained for example on the page Le traitement des plaintes en brouillage ("Handling of complaints about jamming"). While you will probably not go to prision for jamming reception, you could have to pay a significant fine. This article on cell phone jamming mentions a penalty of "up to six months in prison or a 30,000 € fine" for "selling or installing" a cell phone jammer. In addition to that, anyone harmed by the reception problems could sue you in civil court and try to collect financial damages (how much that would be will be up to a judge to decide). That said, note that a faraday cage around your house should not hinder reception outside your house. A faraday cage only influences reception inside the cage, not outside. However, that is off-topic here :-).
The answer depends on the jurisdiction, the court, and how the public defender system is set up. This answer addresses state court indigent defense at the trial level. In many jurisdictions, state courts are organized by counties. In many of these counties, particularly larger and urban counties, public defenders are a department of county government (like the district attorneys who prosecute, or public works, or the tax assessor). These defenders are county employees, and paid a wage. They are not compensated &quot;by the case.&quot; In other jurisdictions, there may be no county-level public defenders. Courts there will appoint private attorneys to defend indigent defendants, and will compensate the defenders pursuant to a fee schedule promulgated by the court, or the judge's whim. The fee schedule may be time-based or flat fee, and usually provides differentials for type of case, amount of time required, investigative and witness fees, and often allows the lawyer to seek additional compensation if the lawyer thinks it's warranted. The court may decline the lawyer's motion, of course, at the risk that the lawyer won't take future appointments, a serious difficulty for the court which must, under the law, provide counsel for indigent defendants who face incarceration. More than this, it's tough to generalize. The setup in Los Angeles County, California, for instance, will be different than the experience in Alliance, NE, or a small county in another state. The same challenges face the federal courts. I'm only familiar with the California federal courts at the trial level, where a parallel system applies, with defenders on salary and employed by the federal government. While some states provide representation on appeal using defenders employed by the state government, other states rely on individual lawyers being appointed, rather like the trial-level system. Source: I'm a prior county public defender and private attorney in California.
The U.S. has no such website, at least at either the federal or the state level. It is possible that some local courts allow their records to be searched on that basis although I am not aware of any that do so. Probably the closest database to that in the U.S. accessible to the public is the non-governmental non-profit organization operated Transactional Record Access Clearinghouse for federal criminal justice records (and other federal government records). It has lots of data on federal government matters from a variety of sources but isn't quite as comprehensive or as easy to use as the website described in the question. The problem with that is that the federal courts handle only a small percentage of the criminal cases in the United States, and it is a highly skewed mix of cases (e.g. with lots of immigration cases but few ordinary &quot;blue collar crime&quot; cases outside Indian Reservations and federal parks). The information necessary to build such a website is largely a matter of public record, but no one has taken on the task of making such a website. In part, this is because the task is so daunting. While the federal courts have a comprehensive electronic database called PACER, each state has at least one separate court case data base system, and many states have trial court case databases only at the county level and not at the state level, or have different databases for different kinds of courts. Even in states that do have statewide databases, there are often some courts that aren't included. For example, Colorado's state courts are part of a single statewide database, but its municipal courts each have their own separate court by court databases. Some rural areas in the U.S. still keep trial court records in paper form only. The data has been gathered from time to time of important subsets of this kind of data, but it isn't publicly available. For example, a media consortia in Florida gathered information to examine the consistency of sentencing and the extent of racial discrimination in sentencing in Florida, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission in the United States gathers such information selectively to make sentencing decisions. Neither of those compilations, however, including making the raw data available to the public. Similarly, there is a separate private academic database that tracks case level state general jurisdiction trial court data in 75 of the largest urban counties in the United States (including state law felony cases). But, that database is only available to members of the academic consortium that maintains it (basically, professors at affiliated universities and other professors granted privileges to use it from consortium member professors). The Westlaw division of its parent company, and Lexis-Nexus collect some trial court level data on U.S. courts, state and federal, on a non-comprehensive, basically opportunistic basis, but don't have complete data from any jurisdiction (although Westlaw's federal data basis has a pretty significant share of reasoned federal trial court orders). Both of these services require paid subscriptions. In contrast, comprehensive databases of precedent making appellate court decisions at the state and federal level are widely available on both a commercial basis (with better search tools, headnote analysis, and correlations of the data like records of cases citing other cases and statutes), and on a non-commercial basis (with just the bare bones text of the cases). This is because this information is necessary to almost every lawyer and judge to practice law on a day to day basis.