Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council Article Index for
Judicial 		Website Links For
Judicial 		 

Information About

Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council
  CATEGORIES ABOUT JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
   
national supreme courts
   
united kingdom court systems
   
APPAREL
BABY
BEAUTY
BOOKS
CAR TOYS
CELL PHONES
DVD'S
ELECTRONICS
GOURMET FOOD
GROCERIES
HEALTH & PERSONAL
HOME & GARDEN
JEWELRY
MUSIC
MUSIC INSTRUMENTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
SOFTWARE
SPORTING GOODS
TOOLS & HARDWARE
TOYS
VIDEO GAMES
SHOPPING HOME
MORE SHOPPING...



The judicial system of the United Kingdom is unusual in having no single highest national court; the Judicial Committee is the highest court of appeal in some cases, while in most others the highest court of appeal is the House Of Lords . In Scotland criminal cases the highest court is the High Court Of Justiciary .


DOMESTIC JURISDICTION

The Privy Council has jurisdiction in the following domestic matters:

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 will transfer the devolution powers to the new Supreme Court Of The United Kingdom when it comes into force.

Additionally, the Government may (through the Queen) refer any issue to the committee for a report. These limited matters of domestic jurisdiction, however, do not alter the principle that the jurisprudence of the JCPC is not part of English common law, given that its appellate jurisdiction in Commonwealth judicial hierarchies was exercised in effect as an ad hoc domestic tribunal in the relevant Commonwealth country.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Her Majesty in Council, is the Court of Final Appeal for the Church Of England , and which replaced the Court of Delegates in 1833 . It hears appeals from the Arches Court , and the Chancery Court of York, except on matters of doctrine, ritual or ceremonial, which went to the Court For Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved . By the Church Discipline Act 1840 and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 all archbishop and bishops were eligible to be members of the Judicial Committee.


OVERSEAS JURISDICTION

The Committee holds jurisdiction in appeals from the following countries "to Her Majesty in Council"


Appeal is directly to the Committee from

Appeal is to the Sultan in
  • Brunei . (The Queen and the Sultan have agreed that the Judicial Committee hears the case and reports to the Sultan.)



MEMBERS

The Judicial Committee includes the following:
  • The Lord Chancellor

  • Former Lord Chancellors

  • Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (who also serve in the House of Lords, known as 'Law Lords')

  • Other Lords of Appeal

  • Privy Councillors who are or were judges of the Court of Appeal of England, the Inner House of the Court Of Session in Scotland or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

  • Privy Councillors who are judges of certain superior courts in Commonwealth nations


The bulk of the work is done by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who are paid to work full time on the Judicial Functions Of The House Of Lords and the Privy Council. Overseas judges may not sit when certain domestic matters are being heard, and overseas judges will often sit when appeals from their countries are being heard.


REGISTRARS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

  • John Watherton 1998-

  • DHO Owen 1983-1998

  • Eric Mills, BA Cambridge Barrister-at-Law Inner Temple 1966-1983

  • Leslie Upton, CBE Barrister-at-Law Gray's Inn JP 1963-1966

  • Aylmer Paterson 1954-1963

  • Colin Smith, MVO OBE c.38

  • George Faber 1887-1896



THE DECLINE OF COMMONWEALTH APPEALS


Initially, all Commonwealth Realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Many of those that became republics or independent indigenous monarchies preserved the Privy Council's jurisdiction by entering into treaties with the British Crown. However, over time many members began to see the Privy Council as being out of tune with local values, and an obstacle to full judicial sovereignty.
  • Australia effectively abolished the right of appeal from the Commonwealth Courts by the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975, and from the State courts by the Australia Act 1986 . The Australian constitution still has a provision requiring the leave of the High Court Of Australia for appeal to the Privy Council on certain matters, so theoretically the High Court could still grant leave on those restricted subjects. However, the High Court has stated that it will not give such permission, so the possibility is purely theoretical.

  • Canada created its Supreme Court in 1875 and abolished appeals to the Privy Council in criminal cases. However, in ''Nadan v. The King'' {Link without Title} AC 482(PC) the Privy Council nevertheless granted an appellant leave to appeal a criminal conviction and ruled that the Canadian ''Criminal Code'' was Ultra Vires the Canadian Parliament because it purported to legislate extraterritorially and purported to repeal imperial legislation. This together with the King-Byng Affair was a major irritant for Canada and provoked the discussion at the 1926 Imperial Conference which led to the Balfour Declaration. With that Declaration and its statutory confirmation in the ''Statute of Westminster'', 1931 (Imp) the impediment to abolishing the Privy Council appeal, whether or not it had been legitimate, was comprehensively removed. Criminal appeals to the Privy Council were ended in 1933. Moves to extend the abolition to civil matters were shelved during the growing international crisis of the 1930s but re-tabled after World War II and civil appeals ended in 1949. The JCPC played a controversial role in the evolution of Canadian Federalism . Further Canadian First Nations argue they still retain the right to appeal to the Privy Council because their treaties predate their relationship to Canada.

  • Hong Kong 's court system changed after the 1997 handover and appeals now go to the Court Of Final Appeal .

  • New Zealand law was changed in October 2003 amid considerably controversy (as the government decided not to call a referendum on the issue) to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in respect of all cases heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand after the end of 2003, in favour of a Supreme Court Of New Zealand .

  • Malaysia abolished appeals to the Privy Council in criminal and constitutional matters in 1978 and in civil matters in 1985 .

  • Singapore abolished Privy Council appeals in all cases save those involving the death penalty or in civil cases where the parties had agreed to such a right of appeal in 1989 . The remaining rights of appeal were abolished in 1994 .


The nations of the Caribbean Community voted in 2001 to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council in favour of a Caribbean Court Of Justice . Some debate between member countries had repeatedly delayed the court's date of inauguration. As of March, 2005 , only Barbados was set to replace the process of appeals of Her Majesty in Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice which then had come into operation. The republic of Guyana also enacted local legislation allowing the CCJ to have jurisdiction over their sovereign final court of appeals system. As it stands, no other CARICOM states appear to be ready for the abolishmment of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the immediate future.
The government of Jamaica in particular, came close and attempted to abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee without the support of the opposition in parliament, however it was ruled that the procedure used to bypass the opposition was incorrect and unconstitutional.

Hong Kong 's final appeal was transferred to the Court Of Final Appeal of the territory following the Handover in 1997.


SEE ALSO



EXTERNAL LINKS