In this report, the Direct Weight Optimization (DWO) approach to function estimation is studied for two special function classes: The classes of approximately constant and approximately linear functions. These classes consist of functions whose deviation from a constant/affine function is bounded by a known constant. Upper and lower bounds for the asymptotic maximum MSE are given, some of whic halso hold in the non-asymptotic case

Ljung, Lennart

Nazin, Alexander

Roll, Jacob

English

Grzybowski, Kazimierz

Duke Law Scholarship Repository

CommentsCOURT REFORM IN ENGLANDA reading of the Beeching report' suggests that the English courtreform which entered into force on 1 January 1972 was the result ofpurely domestic considerations. The members of the Commissionmake no reference to the civil law countries which Great Britain willjoin in an important economic and political regional arrangement.Yet even a cursory examination of the effects of the reform on theadministration of justice in England and Wales suggests that Englishcourts now resemble more closely their counterparts in Western Eu-rope.It should be stated at the outset that the new organization of Eng-lish courts is by no means the result of the 1971 Act alone. The Actcrowned the work of various legislative measures which have broughtgradual change for a period of well over a century, including theJudicature Acts 1873-75, the Interpretation Act 1889, the SupremeCourt of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Administrationof Justice Act 1933, the County Courts Act 1934, the Criminal AppealAct 1966 and the Criminal Law Act 1967. The reform culminates aprolonged process of response to social change affecting the legalstructure in England. Its effect was to divorce the organization of thecourts from tradition and history in order to achieve efficiency andto adapt the courts to new tasks and duties which they must meet innew social and economic conditions.While the earlier acts, including the 1966 Criminal Appeal Act,modernized the structure of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the1971 Act extended modern court structure to the intermediate level,creating the new Crown Court, and provided for the regular admin-istration of justice in civil matters by the High Court in England andWales, outside the Royal Courts in London.In historical perspective the piecemeal reforms of administrationof justice may be roughly described as doing to English justice whatthe French Revolution and modernization of the legal system did tothe administration of justice in France and in due course to the restof Europe. Principal shared features of the judicial systems of themajor Western European countries may be described as follows:There are four levels of courts. Original jurisdiction belongs to thetwo lower levels, with courts of appeal and supreme courts havingexclusive (or almost exclusive) appellate jurisdiction. In France1. Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions 1966-69, Cmnd 4153.THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAWjudges of the Cour d'Appel provide presiding judges and thetribunal for the Cour d'Assize. Courts on all four levels (in Italy,Germany, France and The Netherlands) share criminal and civil juris-diction. The exception is France where the Tribunal d'Instance (thelowest in the hierarchy of French courts manned by the professionaljudiciary) exclusively handles less important civil cases, while minorcriminal infractions (contraventions) are dealt with by justicesof the peace (tribunaux de simple police). More serious criminaland civil cases are handled by the next major court (Tribunal deGrande Instance), which also (one per departmental administrativeunit) serves as an administrative base for the Cour d'Assize, whichtries major crimes with the participation of a jury. The Tribunalde Grande Instance also decides appeals from the decisions of thelower courts in criminal and civil matters, thus constituting the mostimportant link in the administration of criminal and civil justice: Ithandles the most important civil and criminal cases, and in its appel-late role controls and supervises the work of the lower courts in bothfields.This pattern prevails in most of Western Europe. In Germany thevital role belongs to the Landesgericht, in the Netherlands to the Gen-eral Court, and in Italy to the Civil and Criminal Tribunals (TribunaliCivili e Penali). Before the Bolshevik Revolution the middle levelof courts played a similar role in Russia and in all the countries whichafter World War II have adopted the Soviet form of government. 2Two other important features common to most civil law coun-tries are worthy of mention. One is the professionalism of judicialpersonnel. Court reform in Europe was largely motivated by a dis-trust of lay judges. The magistrature includes judges on all levelsof the administration of justice. The judiciary, although part of thelegal profession, constitutes a separate and large class of civil serv-ants, and a separate career. Recruitment of personnel from otherbranches of the legal profession is permitted only for administrativecourts. Despite of distinctions in rank, level of experience and yearsof service at various court levels, members of the judiciary make theircareers independently of appointment to courts of different levels,thus providing a somewhat more even distribution of judicial talentand expertise. As do all lawyers, judges have a university education.The second major civil law feature is an even territorial distributionof courts and judicial personnel, taking into account the volume ofbusiness in the courts, concentration of population, and intensificationof commercial activity.The 1971 Act brought the English Court structure closer to theEuropean pattern. It abolished Assizes and Quarter Sessions and re-placed them with the Crown Court, a middle level court of criminaljurisdiction analogous to similar European courts. In addition tocriminal jurisdiction in all indictable offenses, the Crown Court in-2. After World War II their native administration of justice was re-placed by a judiciary modeled after the Soviet example.[Vol. 21COMMENTSherited from the Quarter Sessions appeal functions from the deci-sions of the Magistrates Courts, including-incidentally-some civiland quasi civil matters (affiliation proceedings and certain proceed-ings under Children and Young Persons Act 1933; cf. generally Mag-istrates Courts Act 1952).The meaning of the reform was demonstrated by the territorialarrangement for the location of new courts and the assignment ofjurisdictional responsibilities to the High Court judges in civil cases.England and Wales were divided into six circuits, equipped with alocal organization for the disposal of judicial business, consisting oftwo presiding judges and a circuit administrator.Criminal cases in the jurisdiction of Crown Courts are handledby two tiers of judges, Circuit and High Court. The former try casesformerly handled by Quarter Sessions, while the latter are responsiblefor cases previously within the jurisdiction of the High Court andAssizes. In London, the Central Criminal Court became the CrownCourt. As a result of this aspect of the reform, the High Court shedits responsibilities in the area of criminal, justice, retaining its func-tions as a maj or court for civil matters.Some confusion results from the fact that upper level judges inthe Crown Courts still retain the name of High Court Judges. Butclearly their title is merely a title of rank, indicating their place inthe judicial hierarchy, antecedents of service, and their degree of spe-cialization. Certainly, High Court judges in the Crown Courts havelittle in common with the High Court of London, which is a majorcourt for civil cases.The real key to the new court structure is found in the Act's pro-visions on court centers (twenty-three outside London) where theCrown Court will sit with its High Court judges. Sittings of theHigh Court as the major English court for civil matters are also heldin these centers, thus providing for a full equivalent of the FrenchTribunal de Grande Instance (including Court d'Assize), the GermanLandesgericht and the Italian Tribunali Civili e Penali. Courts activein the center handle appeals from lower courts (civil and criminal)as well as major civil and criminal cases, from which appeal lies tothe Criminal and Civil Divisions of the Court of Appeal in London.High Court sittings in court centers and Crown Courts lack a com-mon organizational form. However, their work is subject to theadministrative control of the Circuits which, from the administrativepoint of view, constitute an adequate substitute for the morecohesive organization of Western European courts.As conceived in the 1971 Act, the Crown Court Bench still con-sists of disparate elements, a hangover from the system from whichthe Crown Courts originated and clearly a drawback in the organiza-tion of this key institution in the administration of justice. TheCourt consists of two classes of judges: Circuit judges, equal in rankwith the County Court Bench and made up mostly from the mem-bers of that Bench, and part-time appointments (recorders). How-ever, on the Lord Chancellor's request, any Circuit Court judge or re-1973]THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAWcorder sitting in the Crown Court may sit as High Court Judge toassist in civil trials. This is combined with the requirement that ev-ery judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court, and every re-corder, be capable to sit as a judge for any County Court district.The general effect of these measures is the creation of a Benchwhich, despite differences in rank and title of its members, is ableto serve anywhere in England and Wales, although the High Courtremains a London-based court. Although the 1971 Courts Act hasmade no change in this connection, the role of the jury in the admin-istration of Justice in England differs but little from the proceduresfollowed in major European countries, where it has been almost ex-clusively restricted to criminal trials. The Judicature Acts 1873-75,by fusing the administration of law and equity, adopted Chanceryprocedure in most civil cases. Trial was by judge alone. Anotherpractice established by the Judicature Acts was regularized by the Ad-ministration of Justice Act 1933: jury trials were provided for casesof fraud, libel, slander, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment,seduction, or breach of promise of marriage, unless the court decidesthat owing to the nature of evidence (examination of documents, sci-entific expertise) the use of a jury would not be indicated. Excep-tions are defended divorce and probate cases, where either party mayapply for a jury. Since juries are obligatory only in cases which inmost civil law countries fall within the criminal law, most civil ac-tions are tried before a professional judge alone. Since the establish-ment of the Crown Court only the most serious felonies come beforea jury and a High Court judge, while minor crimes are tried by aCircuit judge alone.The creation of the new system of territorial courts at the middlelevel was combined with an administrative reform. The Lord Chan-cellor was given powers comparable to those of the minister of jus-tice in the civil law countries, combined with the administrative re-sponsibilities usually exercised by the presidents (chief justices) ofthe Courts of Appeal.Finally, a breach was made in the system separating barristersfrom solicitors, by affording solicitors access to the Bench and Bar,thus bringing the English legal profession closer to the Europeanmodel. Almost simultaneously France has reorganized its legal pro-fession by abolishing the institution of avoug, a branch of the legalprofession greatly resembling the English solicitor, and creating asingle class of avocats, who now perform functions which in Englandbelong to the solicitor and barrister groups.3 There are still substan-tial differences between the avocat in France and the legal professionin England: All French lawyers, whatever their line of professionalactivity, are university trained; and the English legal profession sup-plies the members of the bench. So although the effects of theCourts Act 1971 are far less sweeping than the French legislation, the3. See Journal Officiel 5 Jan. 1972, p. 131. See also discussion byGrementieri and Golden, Jr., supra pp. 676-77.[Vol. 21Act does constitute a first step in drawing solicitors into courtwork. They are given a partial right of audience, and are includedin the legal talent pool from which judicial personnel may be re-cruited. Formerly-with few local exceptions where qualified bar-risters were not available-solicitors were denied the right of audi-ence in Quarter Sessions and Assizes, and could plead only in theCounty Courts. Under the 1971 Act, the Lord Chancellor has theright to authorize solicitors to appear in cases tried in the CrownCourts.Initially the Circuit Bench shall consist of persons who heldCounty Court judgeships or who were full term judges of the CentralCriminal Court in London. Also eligible are barristers of ten years'standing and recorders of five years' standing. Recorders may beappointed from barristers or solicitors of ten years' standing. Thussolicitors have become eligible for elevation to circuit judgeshipsthrough the vehicle of a five-year apprenticeship as a recorder.These reforms, coming on the eve of British entry into the Com-mon Market, reorganized the British court system according to prin-ciples greatly resembling the court organization in the civil law coun-tries. There is still a great gap betwen two levels of judiciary, theHigh Court and Court of Appeal judges who can perform judicialfunctions on all levels of the administration of justice, and the Cir-cuit Court judges who only exceptionally can preside over courts try-ing cases within High Court's jurisdiction. However, the Crown Courtand judicial centers provide a meeting ground for the Circuit andthe High Court judges, and an opportunity to establish judicial espritde corps for all classes of judges. Should university education begiven a greater role in the training of the legal profession in thefuture, there would indeed be no reason to distinguish between so-licitors and barristers in determining aptitude, temperament andpreparation for judicial office. 4KAZIMIERZ GRZYBOWSKI*4. For additional information on the Courts Act see Borrie, "The CourtsAct 1971-I adn II," 121 New L.J. 474-76 ,505-506 (1971); Huebner, "TheCourts Act 1971 An Outline of the New System," 121 New L.J. 1136-38, 1161-62(1971), 122 New L.J. 4-5 (1972); Cretney, "Courts Act 1971-I and II," 115Sol. J. 715-17, 732-33 (1971).* Professor of Law, Duke Law School.1973] COMMENTS

Court Reform in England

Publikationer från Linköpings universitet

A Study of the DWO Approach to Function Estimation at a Given Point : Approximately Constant and Approximately Linear Function Classes

Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-line

Academic Archive On-line (Linköping University, Sweden)

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5723&amp;context=faculty_scholarship

Court Reform in England

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Duke Law Scholarship Repository

Publikationer från Linköpings universitet

Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet - Academic Archive On-line

Academic Archive On-line (Linköping University, Sweden)