WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.299 You know, that scene in pretty much every legal 00:00:03.299 --> 00:00:06.379 drama ever made, the music swells, the gavel 00:00:06.379 --> 00:00:09.539 bangs, the losing lawyer storms out onto the 00:00:09.539 --> 00:00:12.039 courthouse steps surrounded by reporters and 00:00:12.039 --> 00:00:13.919 shouts, we are taking this all the way to the 00:00:13.919 --> 00:00:17.339 Supreme Court. Yeah, it is a classic trope. It's 00:00:17.339 --> 00:00:20.559 the Hollywood version of how justice works, really. 00:00:21.039 --> 00:00:23.079 It implies that the Supreme Court is where the 00:00:23.079 --> 00:00:25.079 real action happens, you know, where the final 00:00:25.079 --> 00:00:27.399 battle is fought. Right. It's the... The main 00:00:27.399 --> 00:00:31.160 event. But today, we're going to completely debunk 00:00:31.160 --> 00:00:33.299 that idea for you. We've been digging through 00:00:33.299 --> 00:00:35.539 a massive stack of sources for this deep dive 00:00:35.539 --> 00:00:37.780 into the Wikipedia entry for the Court of Appeal 00:00:37.780 --> 00:00:40.240 of England and Wales. We're looking at judicial 00:00:40.240 --> 00:00:42.439 statistics, historical records of the English 00:00:42.439 --> 00:00:44.920 legal system, the procedural rules. All the dry 00:00:44.920 --> 00:00:47.100 stuff that actually governs the courts. Exactly. 00:00:48.389 --> 00:00:50.710 The reality is just quite different from the 00:00:50.710 --> 00:00:53.409 movies. The Supreme Court is, well, it's kind 00:00:53.409 --> 00:00:55.490 of the show pony. Well, that might be a little 00:00:55.490 --> 00:00:57.590 harsh, but statistically, you aren't wrong. I 00:00:57.590 --> 00:01:00.229 mean, the Supreme Court in the UK hears maybe 00:01:00.229 --> 00:01:03.630 60 to 80 cases a year. That's it. It deals with 00:01:03.630 --> 00:01:06.469 the high concept constitutional philosophy type 00:01:06.469 --> 00:01:08.930 of stuff. Whereas the court we are diving into 00:01:08.930 --> 00:01:12.090 today, the Court of Appeal, is the real engine 00:01:12.090 --> 00:01:14.670 room. This is where the heavy lifting happens. 00:01:15.359 --> 00:01:17.719 If the Supreme Court is the philosophy department, 00:01:18.219 --> 00:01:20.599 the Court of Appeal is the emergency room. That's 00:01:20.599 --> 00:01:22.500 a great way to put it. It's where the messy, 00:01:22.780 --> 00:01:25.739 high volume, high stakes work of actually, you 00:01:25.739 --> 00:01:28.060 know, correcting the law takes place day in and 00:01:28.060 --> 00:01:30.980 day out. Exactly. This is the second most senior 00:01:30.980 --> 00:01:34.439 court in England and Wales. And frankly, it's 00:01:34.439 --> 00:01:36.260 the place that keeps the whole machine running. 00:01:36.920 --> 00:01:39.680 So today, our mission for this deep dive is to 00:01:39.680 --> 00:01:41.819 unpack the Court of Appeal. We're going to look 00:01:41.819 --> 00:01:44.079 at how it actually functions, why it was created 00:01:44.079 --> 00:01:46.439 to fix a system that can only be described as, 00:01:46.439 --> 00:01:49.140 well, a total dumpster fire. The complete mess, 00:01:49.280 --> 00:01:51.079 yeah. And how it decides whether a legal fight 00:01:51.079 --> 00:01:52.939 ends right there or goes all the way to the top. 00:01:53.260 --> 00:01:55.579 And before we get into the nitty gritty, we really 00:01:55.579 --> 00:01:57.739 need to set the stage visually for you, because 00:01:57.739 --> 00:02:00.459 we aren't talking about some modern glass office 00:02:00.459 --> 00:02:03.280 block here. We are talking about the royal courts 00:02:03.280 --> 00:02:06.420 of justice on the Strand in London. Oh, it is 00:02:06.420 --> 00:02:09.879 an incredible visual. Just massive, imposing, 00:02:10.060 --> 00:02:13.500 gothic revival architecture. You've got stone 00:02:13.500 --> 00:02:16.439 corridors, vaulted ceilings, stained glass. It 00:02:16.439 --> 00:02:19.139 looks like a cathedral or maybe Hogwarts for 00:02:19.139 --> 00:02:22.500 lawyers. I love that image. Yeah. But that architecture 00:02:22.500 --> 00:02:24.300 actually tells us something about the history, 00:02:24.379 --> 00:02:26.740 doesn't it? Because before that building opened 00:02:26.740 --> 00:02:32.219 in the 1880s, the English legal system was, well, 00:02:32.990 --> 00:02:35.150 Messy puts it really lightly. Yeah. Messy is 00:02:35.150 --> 00:02:37.569 generous. If you go back to the mid -19th century, 00:02:37.629 --> 00:02:40.210 so before 1875, there wasn't really a court system. 00:02:40.490 --> 00:02:42.569 There were 12 different superior courts. Whoa. 00:02:42.849 --> 00:02:44.870 12. And the problem wasn't just the sheer number. 00:02:44.949 --> 00:02:46.729 It was that they didn't really talk to each other. 00:02:46.889 --> 00:02:49.009 So if I had a legal problem back then, how did 00:02:49.009 --> 00:02:50.849 I even know where to go? That was the issue. 00:02:50.849 --> 00:02:52.750 It was a complete labyrinth. Let's say you had 00:02:52.750 --> 00:02:55.169 a dispute. If it was a common law issue and you 00:02:55.169 --> 00:02:56.909 wanted to appeal, you had to go to something 00:02:56.909 --> 00:02:59.080 called the court of exchequer chamber. Which 00:02:59.080 --> 00:03:02.180 sounds incredibly medieval. It was. But if your 00:03:02.180 --> 00:03:04.759 dispute was about a trust or an estate which 00:03:04.759 --> 00:03:07.719 falls under equity law, you couldn't go there. 00:03:07.759 --> 00:03:09.900 You had to go to the Court of Appeal and Chancery. 00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:12.719 And if it was a maritime issue or something ecclesiastical, 00:03:13.120 --> 00:03:15.800 you went to the Privy Council. You could literally 00:03:15.800 --> 00:03:19.919 spend years and a small fortune just figuring 00:03:19.919 --> 00:03:22.759 out which door to knock on. So the system was 00:03:22.759 --> 00:03:24.710 basically inefficient by design. Inefficient 00:03:24.710 --> 00:03:27.250 by accident of history, really, it had just grown 00:03:27.250 --> 00:03:29.710 organically over centuries without a master plan. 00:03:30.210 --> 00:03:32.490 By the 1870s, with the Industrial Revolution 00:03:32.490 --> 00:03:35.490 booming, commerce just couldn't function with 00:03:35.490 --> 00:03:38.710 a legal system that's slow and confusing. They 00:03:38.710 --> 00:03:40.810 desperately needed a hard reset. Enter the Big 00:03:40.810 --> 00:03:44.050 Bang of English law. The Judicature Acts of 1873 00:03:44.050 --> 00:03:47.270 and 1875. This is the moment modern English law 00:03:47.270 --> 00:03:50.509 really begins. They took those 12 fractured courts, 00:03:50.789 --> 00:03:53.550 smashed them together and created one single 00:03:53.520 --> 00:03:56.400 Supreme Court of Judicature. Just to clarify 00:03:56.400 --> 00:03:57.960 for the listener, because the names get confusing 00:03:57.960 --> 00:03:59.659 here, this isn't the Supreme Court we have today, 00:03:59.840 --> 00:04:02.520 right? Correct. That is a modern branding issue. 00:04:03.159 --> 00:04:06.199 In 1875, the Supreme Court of Judicature meant 00:04:06.199 --> 00:04:08.500 the combination of the High Court, where the 00:04:08.500 --> 00:04:10.340 trials happen, and the Court of Appeal, where 00:04:10.340 --> 00:04:12.620 the corrections happen. They streamlined everything 00:04:12.620 --> 00:04:16.540 into one structure. Order from chaos. But looking 00:04:16.540 --> 00:04:18.680 at the sources we gathered, there's a glaring 00:04:18.680 --> 00:04:21.300 omission in this new system. It seems like the 00:04:21.300 --> 00:04:23.459 Victorians cared a lot about money and property, 00:04:23.899 --> 00:04:26.579 but not so much about people. Ah, you noticed 00:04:26.579 --> 00:04:28.579 that. When the Court of Appeal was first set 00:04:28.579 --> 00:04:31.480 up, it was almost exclusively for civil cases. 00:04:31.600 --> 00:04:34.240 So if I lost a contract dispute, I had a shiny 00:04:34.240 --> 00:04:37.199 new court to go to. But if I was wrongly convicted 00:04:37.199 --> 00:04:39.759 of a crime... You were largely out of luck. There 00:04:39.759 --> 00:04:43.100 was no formal, robust avenue for criminal appeals 00:04:43.100 --> 00:04:45.240 until the establishment of the Court of Criminal 00:04:45.240 --> 00:04:48.759 Appeal in 1907. Before that, the system effectively 00:04:48.759 --> 00:04:51.459 assumed that a jury verdict was sacred and infallible. 00:04:51.860 --> 00:04:54.019 That is wild. It is. It actually took some pretty 00:04:54.019 --> 00:04:56.439 horrific, high -profile miscarriages of justice 00:04:56.439 --> 00:04:58.839 to force the government to admit that, actually, 00:04:59.060 --> 00:05:00.920 juries and judges make mistakes in criminal trials 00:05:00.920 --> 00:05:02.860 too. It really tells you where the priorities 00:05:02.860 --> 00:05:05.300 were at the time. Property first, liberty second. 00:05:05.720 --> 00:05:08.319 Exactly. Okay, so eventually they fixed the structure. 00:05:08.620 --> 00:05:10.579 We have the High Court, the Court of Appeal, 00:05:10.620 --> 00:05:12.360 and the House of Lords, which is now the Supreme 00:05:12.360 --> 00:05:15.709 Court. But that sounds like a very long ladder 00:05:15.709 --> 00:05:19.129 to climb. And the notes mention a shortcut called 00:05:19.129 --> 00:05:22.389 leapfrogging. Yes. Leapfrogging sounds like a 00:05:22.389 --> 00:05:25.269 playground game, but it's a crucial tool for 00:05:25.269 --> 00:05:28.149 efficiency. It was introduced by the Administration 00:05:28.149 --> 00:05:32.709 of Justice Act 1969. How does it work? Well, 00:05:33.009 --> 00:05:35.300 normally you have to go step by step. High Court, 00:05:35.519 --> 00:05:38.019 then Court of Appeal, then Supreme Court. But 00:05:38.019 --> 00:05:41.000 sometimes a case comes along where everyone knows 00:05:41.000 --> 00:05:43.240 the Court of Appeal literally cannot help. Why 00:05:43.240 --> 00:05:45.579 couldn't they help? Because of precedent. Let's 00:05:45.579 --> 00:05:47.800 say there is an old House of Lords ruling that 00:05:47.800 --> 00:05:50.160 is clearly outdated, but it's still technically 00:05:50.160 --> 00:05:52.839 the law. The Court of Appeal must follow it. 00:05:53.060 --> 00:05:55.560 They cannot overrule their bosses. So there is 00:05:55.560 --> 00:05:57.680 no point in having a hearing just for the Court 00:05:57.680 --> 00:06:00.240 of Appeal to shrug and say, we agree with you, 00:06:00.240 --> 00:06:02.519 but our hands are tied. So leapfrogging lets 00:06:02.519 --> 00:06:05.879 you skip the middleman. Exactly. You jump straight 00:06:05.879 --> 00:06:08.199 from the High Court to the Supreme Court. It 00:06:08.199 --> 00:06:11.699 saves months of time and tens of thousands of 00:06:11.699 --> 00:06:14.339 pounds in legal fees. It's the system admitting, 00:06:14.680 --> 00:06:16.660 OK, we know where this is going to end up. Let's 00:06:16.660 --> 00:06:19.720 just get there. There was also a reform back 00:06:19.720 --> 00:06:22.839 in 1934 that stopped county court cases from 00:06:22.839 --> 00:06:25.199 having to go to the High Court first, sending 00:06:25.199 --> 00:06:27.079 them straight to the Court of Appeal. It's all 00:06:27.079 --> 00:06:29.860 about speed and saving money. Efficiency is the 00:06:29.860 --> 00:06:32.579 holy grail of the modern judiciary. Let's look 00:06:32.579 --> 00:06:34.639 at how the court is organized today, because 00:06:34.639 --> 00:06:36.680 even though they are all in that same gothic 00:06:36.680 --> 00:06:39.639 building, we are really talking about two very 00:06:39.639 --> 00:06:42.160 different worlds operating side by side. We are. 00:06:42.180 --> 00:06:44.959 Since 1966, the court has been formally split 00:06:44.959 --> 00:06:47.660 into two divisions, the civil division and the 00:06:47.660 --> 00:06:50.680 criminal division. And culturally, they are quite 00:06:50.680 --> 00:06:53.040 distinct. Let's start with the civil side. Who 00:06:53.040 --> 00:06:54.939 is running the show there? The civil division 00:06:54.939 --> 00:06:57.360 is led by the master of the roles. Which has 00:06:57.360 --> 00:06:59.000 to be the best title in the British government. 00:06:59.220 --> 00:07:00.939 Sounds like a character from Dungeons and Dragons. 00:07:01.079 --> 00:07:03.620 It sounds medieval because it is. It goes back 00:07:03.620 --> 00:07:07.000 centuries. Currently, that role is held by Sir 00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:10.139 Geoffrey Voss. The master of the roles is effectively 00:07:10.139 --> 00:07:13.300 the CEO of civil justice. They hear appeals from 00:07:13.300 --> 00:07:16.300 the high court, the county courts, and the family 00:07:16.300 --> 00:07:19.459 court. And the sources suggest that this person, 00:07:19.819 --> 00:07:22.779 the master in the roles, often has more influence 00:07:22.779 --> 00:07:25.420 on the daily life of the law than even the heads 00:07:25.420 --> 00:07:29.029 of the Supreme Court. Why is that? It comes down 00:07:29.029 --> 00:07:31.610 to volume and scope. The Supreme Court deals 00:07:31.610 --> 00:07:34.069 with high -level constitutional points that might 00:07:34.069 --> 00:07:36.750 only affect a few people directly. But the Civil 00:07:36.750 --> 00:07:39.269 Division deals with everything else. Contract 00:07:39.269 --> 00:07:42.350 disputes, negligence, family breakdowns, intellectual 00:07:42.350 --> 00:07:45.029 property. The master of the role sets the tone 00:07:45.029 --> 00:07:47.310 for how business is done in the country. I suppose 00:07:47.310 --> 00:07:50.069 the classic example is Lord Denning. You can't 00:07:50.069 --> 00:07:51.709 talk about the Court of Appeal without mentioning 00:07:51.709 --> 00:07:53.889 Lord Denning. He was master of the roles from 00:07:53.889 --> 00:07:57.550 1962 to 1982. He treated the Court of Appeal 00:07:57.550 --> 00:07:59.449 like his personal instrument for modernizing 00:07:59.449 --> 00:08:02.350 the law. He famously cared more about justice 00:08:02.350 --> 00:08:04.889 in the moral sense than strict adherence to the 00:08:04.889 --> 00:08:06.769 rule book. He was the rebel of the judiciary. 00:08:07.170 --> 00:08:09.579 A massive rebel. He often clashed with the House 00:08:09.579 --> 00:08:12.279 of Lords. But because he sat in the Civil Division 00:08:12.279 --> 00:08:15.879 for 20 years, he shaped the law of contract and 00:08:15.879 --> 00:08:18.480 tort more than any other single judge in the 00:08:18.480 --> 00:08:20.339 20th century. Now let's flip the coin to the 00:08:20.339 --> 00:08:22.800 Criminal Division. This is led by the Lady Chief 00:08:22.800 --> 00:08:25.199 Justice, currently Baroness Carr of Walton on 00:08:25.199 --> 00:08:27.939 the Hill. This division hears appeals from the 00:08:27.939 --> 00:08:31.699 Crown Court. So we are talking about trials on 00:08:31.699 --> 00:08:35.809 indictment. Jury trials. Serious crime. And this 00:08:35.809 --> 00:08:38.029 is where the rules of the game change. I found 00:08:38.029 --> 00:08:39.909 this fascinating when looking at our deep dive 00:08:39.909 --> 00:08:42.269 materials. The notes mention that the criminal 00:08:42.269 --> 00:08:45.269 division is less bound by its own past than the 00:08:45.269 --> 00:08:47.429 civil division. This is a critical distinction. 00:08:47.769 --> 00:08:50.070 In the civil division, they operate under strict 00:08:50.070 --> 00:08:52.750 precedent. They generally must follow their own 00:08:52.750 --> 00:08:55.929 previous decisions. Why? Certainty. Businesses 00:08:55.929 --> 00:08:58.190 need to know that a contract clause means the 00:08:58.190 --> 00:09:01.549 same thing today as it did in 1990. But in criminal 00:09:01.549 --> 00:09:04.460 law. In criminal law, the currency isn't money. 00:09:04.659 --> 00:09:07.580 It's liberty. If the Court of Appeal Criminal 00:09:07.580 --> 00:09:10.039 Division realizes that a previous decision was 00:09:10.039 --> 00:09:12.779 wrong, and following it would mean keeping a 00:09:12.779 --> 00:09:16.179 person in prison unjustly, they have more flexibility 00:09:16.179 --> 00:09:18.940 to say, we got that wrong, and depart from it. 00:09:19.279 --> 00:09:21.539 That makes total sense. Sorry we locked you up, 00:09:21.559 --> 00:09:23.980 but we really like consistency isn't exactly 00:09:23.980 --> 00:09:26.340 a great motto for a justice system. Precisely. 00:09:26.399 --> 00:09:28.940 The liberty of the subject trumps the need for 00:09:28.940 --> 00:09:31.539 legal neatness. OK, so that's the structure. 00:09:32.039 --> 00:09:33.960 Now I want to talk about the user experience. 00:09:34.559 --> 00:09:37.179 Because I think there is a misconception, again, 00:09:37.299 --> 00:09:40.659 fueled by TV, that everyone has a right to appeal. 00:09:41.240 --> 00:09:43.759 That if I lose a case, I can automatically demand 00:09:43.759 --> 00:09:46.100 a second opinion. That is the single biggest 00:09:46.100 --> 00:09:48.600 myth. In the modern English system, you have 00:09:48.600 --> 00:09:51.480 almost no automatic right to appeal. So I can't 00:09:51.480 --> 00:09:53.279 just fill out a form? You can fill out the form, 00:09:53.320 --> 00:09:56.399 but the door is locked. You need permission or 00:09:56.399 --> 00:09:59.139 leave to appeal. And the bouncers at the door 00:09:59.139 --> 00:10:01.500 are incredibly strict. This wasn't always the 00:10:01.500 --> 00:10:04.440 case, though, was it? No. Until the late 90s, 00:10:04.460 --> 00:10:07.399 it was much easier. But the system was drowning 00:10:07.399 --> 00:10:10.899 in paperwork. Lord Wolfe and Sir Geoffrey Bowman 00:10:10.899 --> 00:10:13.600 conducted these massive reviews of the justice 00:10:13.600 --> 00:10:17.519 system. Bowman found that in nearly 70 % of cases, 00:10:17.799 --> 00:10:20.759 there was a 14 -month delay just to get a hearing. 00:10:21.340 --> 00:10:24.919 Some cases took five years. That's justice denied 00:10:24.919 --> 00:10:27.559 by delay. Exactly. So they installed the filter. 00:10:28.200 --> 00:10:30.460 Now, to get permission, you have to prove one 00:10:30.460 --> 00:10:33.500 of two things. Either your appeal has a real 00:10:33.500 --> 00:10:35.799 prospect of success, meaning it's not just a 00:10:35.799 --> 00:10:38.960 Hail Mary pass, or there is some other compelling 00:10:38.960 --> 00:10:41.179 reason for it to be heard. Compelling reason 00:10:41.179 --> 00:10:43.559 sounds a bit vague. It usually means a point 00:10:43.559 --> 00:10:46.200 of public interest. Even if you might not win, 00:10:46.639 --> 00:10:49.440 the law needs clarifying for everyone else. But 00:10:49.440 --> 00:10:51.299 if you can't prove that, you don't even get in 00:10:51.299 --> 00:10:53.240 the room. And what if I'm really stubborn? Say 00:10:53.240 --> 00:10:55.399 I lost in the county court. I appealed to the 00:10:55.399 --> 00:10:57.700 high court. I lost again. And now I want to go 00:10:57.700 --> 00:10:59.580 to the court of appeal. That is a second appeal. 00:10:59.720 --> 00:11:01.620 And the wall there is 10 feet higher. They really 00:11:01.620 --> 00:11:03.600 don't want to see you at that point. They really 00:11:03.600 --> 00:11:07.480 don't. The leading case here is Tanfern LTDV 00:11:07.480 --> 00:11:10.960 Cameron McDonald. The court was very blunt. They 00:11:10.960 --> 00:11:13.899 said that lord justices constitute a scarce resource. 00:11:14.559 --> 00:11:16.919 You don't get a second appeal just because you 00:11:16.919 --> 00:11:18.879 think the high court judge was wrong. You only 00:11:18.879 --> 00:11:20.799 get it if the case raises an important point 00:11:20.799 --> 00:11:23.980 of principle or practice. So at that stage, it's 00:11:23.980 --> 00:11:26.500 not about you or your grievance anymore. It's 00:11:26.500 --> 00:11:29.679 about the law itself. Correct. The system values 00:11:29.679 --> 00:11:32.480 finality. At some point, the argument has to 00:11:32.480 --> 00:11:34.559 end so everyone can move on. There's another 00:11:34.559 --> 00:11:36.360 distinction here that I think trips people up. 00:11:36.460 --> 00:11:40.039 Review versus rehearing. I always assumed an 00:11:40.039 --> 00:11:41.879 appeal was a do -over. You know, call the witnesses 00:11:41.879 --> 00:11:44.720 back. Try again to convince a new judge. A very 00:11:44.720 --> 00:11:46.980 common mistake. The Court of Appeal almost never 00:11:46.980 --> 00:11:49.080 hears live evidence. They don't want to see the 00:11:49.080 --> 00:11:50.700 witnesses. Why not? Wouldn't seeing the witness 00:11:50.700 --> 00:11:53.299 help? Their logic is that the trial judge was 00:11:53.299 --> 00:11:55.559 the one who looked the witness in the eye, saw 00:11:55.559 --> 00:11:58.919 them sweat, and decided if they were lying. The 00:11:58.919 --> 00:12:01.480 Court of Appeal respects that firsthand advantage. 00:12:01.919 --> 00:12:04.440 So an appeal is a review. They are looking at 00:12:04.440 --> 00:12:06.299 the transcript and the legal arguments to see 00:12:06.299 --> 00:12:08.600 if the judge made a technical error in the law 00:12:08.600 --> 00:12:11.299 or a massive procedural blunder. So they are 00:12:11.299 --> 00:12:14.039 grading the judge's homework. not retaking the 00:12:14.039 --> 00:12:17.080 test. That is the perfect analogy. Unless the 00:12:17.080 --> 00:12:20.139 judge's decision was plainly wrong or perverse, 00:12:20.620 --> 00:12:22.440 meaning no reasonable judge could have reached 00:12:22.440 --> 00:12:24.919 it, they won't interfere. Speaking of grading 00:12:24.919 --> 00:12:27.779 homework, let's talk about how the actual process 00:12:27.779 --> 00:12:30.500 has changed. Because reading about the old days 00:12:30.500 --> 00:12:33.419 is hilarious. Is it true that lawyers used to 00:12:33.419 --> 00:12:35.460 read everything out loud? It sounds like a joke, 00:12:35.519 --> 00:12:38.789 but yes. Before the modern reforms, oral advocacy 00:12:38.789 --> 00:12:41.529 was taken literally. Council would stand there 00:12:41.529 --> 00:12:43.610 and read the entire judgment on the lower court, 00:12:43.970 --> 00:12:46.230 the witness statements, the documents, the correspondence. 00:12:46.309 --> 00:12:48.830 That could take days. Weeks in complex cases. 00:12:48.970 --> 00:12:51.049 It was an endurance sport, and the judges would 00:12:51.049 --> 00:12:53.370 just sit there and listen. Why? Why not just 00:12:53.370 --> 00:12:55.429 read the papers beforehand like a normal person? 00:12:55.659 --> 00:12:58.519 Prudition. And a bit of arrogance, to be honest. 00:12:59.059 --> 00:13:01.480 In the 1960s, when people suggested moving to 00:13:01.480 --> 00:13:04.179 the American system, where judges read briefs 00:13:04.179 --> 00:13:06.639 before the hearing, British judges turned their 00:13:06.639 --> 00:13:09.580 noses up at it. They felt that justice must be 00:13:09.580 --> 00:13:11.919 seen to be done, which apparently meant heard 00:13:11.919 --> 00:13:14.980 to be done. We don't do that here. Exactly. But 00:13:14.980 --> 00:13:17.460 eventually, the logic of efficiency won out. 00:13:17.799 --> 00:13:20.580 The volume of cases made the old way impossible. 00:13:21.029 --> 00:13:23.950 Now, we have skeleton arguments, written summaries, 00:13:24.330 --> 00:13:26.370 and judges do pre -reading. They come into court 00:13:26.370 --> 00:13:28.629 already knowing the facts. It saves a massive 00:13:28.629 --> 00:13:30.809 amount of time. It does, but it also changes 00:13:30.809 --> 00:13:33.629 the skill set. A lawyer can't just be a good 00:13:33.629 --> 00:13:35.889 orator anymore. They have to be a brilliant writer. 00:13:36.110 --> 00:13:37.990 And the modernization isn't just about reading. 00:13:38.250 --> 00:13:40.470 We have technology now. Camera's in the court. 00:13:40.590 --> 00:13:44.970 We do. Since 2013, the ban was lifted. But notice 00:13:44.970 --> 00:13:47.110 the caution. If you watch the livestream, it's 00:13:47.110 --> 00:13:50.299 on a 70 -second delay. Oops, buffer. Exactly. 00:13:50.480 --> 00:13:52.340 In case someone blurts out a name that is supposed 00:13:52.340 --> 00:13:54.860 to be anonymous or sensitive security information 00:13:54.860 --> 00:13:57.519 comes up, it's transparency but with a safety 00:13:57.519 --> 00:14:00.340 net. I also saw that they're pushing mediation 00:14:00.340 --> 00:14:02.919 heavily, the Court of Appeal mediation scheme, 00:14:03.379 --> 00:14:05.620 which feels very modern. This is fascinating. 00:14:05.980 --> 00:14:08.440 If you have a contract or personal injury claim 00:14:08.440 --> 00:14:10.940 under a hundred thousand pounds, you might get 00:14:10.940 --> 00:14:14.500 diverted to mediation. The 2022 data showed a 00:14:14.500 --> 00:14:17.580 40 to 50 percent success rate. That's huge. That's 00:14:17.580 --> 00:14:19.740 half the docket cleared without a judge lifting 00:14:19.740 --> 00:14:22.159 a finger. And going back to the scarce resource 00:14:22.159 --> 00:14:25.659 argument, that is vital. Every case settled in 00:14:25.659 --> 00:14:30.059 a side room is a slot opened up for a major constitutional 00:14:30.059 --> 00:14:32.779 appeal that really needs judicial attention. 00:14:33.039 --> 00:14:34.840 Let's talk about the people making these decisions. 00:14:35.100 --> 00:14:38.519 Who makes the cut? There are currently 39 Lord 00:14:38.519 --> 00:14:41.500 and Lady Justices of Appeal. with a mandatory 00:14:41.500 --> 00:14:44.299 retirement age of 75. And the pay isn't terrible. 00:14:44.460 --> 00:14:46.879 It's comfortable. A Lord or Lady Justice makes 00:14:46.879 --> 00:14:50.559 about 188 ,900 pounds a year. The Lady Chief 00:14:50.559 --> 00:14:54.019 Justice is on over 230 ,000. But consider what 00:14:54.019 --> 00:14:56.200 these people could earn in private practice as 00:14:56.200 --> 00:14:59.399 top casees. They are taking a significant pay 00:14:59.399 --> 00:15:02.100 cut to sit on the bench. True. It's public service. 00:15:02.340 --> 00:15:04.019 And I want to touch on the diversity aspect, 00:15:04.139 --> 00:15:06.799 specifically the titles. Because English law 00:15:06.799 --> 00:15:09.960 loves its traditions. even when they stop making 00:15:09.960 --> 00:15:12.440 sense. The language lags behind the reality. 00:15:13.120 --> 00:15:15.179 For a long time, the statute said the judges 00:15:15.179 --> 00:15:18.600 were Lord Justices of Appeal, even when the first 00:15:18.600 --> 00:15:21.539 woman, Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss, was appointed 00:15:21.539 --> 00:15:24.440 in 1988. So she was officially a Lord Justice? 00:15:24.860 --> 00:15:28.019 Officially, yes. It wasn't until 1994 that the 00:15:28.019 --> 00:15:30.340 practice shifted to calling them Lady Justice 00:15:30.340 --> 00:15:33.179 informally, and it took until 2003 for that to 00:15:33.179 --> 00:15:36.740 become the formal statutory title. 2003 is surprisingly 00:15:36.740 --> 00:15:39.440 recent. It is, and the numbers are shifting slowly. 00:15:39.980 --> 00:15:44.000 As of early 2026, we have 10 Lady Justices out 00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:46.500 of the 39, so we are at about 25 percent. It's 00:15:46.500 --> 00:15:48.139 better than it was, but it's not parity yet. 00:15:48.379 --> 00:15:50.240 Before we wrap up, we have to tackle the big 00:15:50.240 --> 00:15:52.529 technical beast. We threw around the Latin term 00:15:52.529 --> 00:15:55.250 steered decisis earlier. I want to understand, 00:15:55.450 --> 00:15:57.370 strictly speaking, can the Court of Appeal change 00:15:57.370 --> 00:15:59.789 its mind? This is the question that keeps law 00:15:59.789 --> 00:16:02.029 students awake at night. The short answer is, 00:16:02.129 --> 00:16:04.730 generally, no. They are bound by their own past 00:16:04.730 --> 00:16:07.350 decisions. Why tie their own hands? Certainty. 00:16:07.649 --> 00:16:10.549 If the law changes every time a new judge sits 00:16:10.549 --> 00:16:14.230 on the bench, nobody knows how to behave. But 00:16:14.230 --> 00:16:17.350 they realized this could lead to ridiculous situations 00:16:17.350 --> 00:16:20.039 where they are forced to follow a bad law. So 00:16:20.039 --> 00:16:23.899 in 1946, in a famous case called Young v. Bristol 00:16:23.899 --> 00:16:27.360 Aeroplane Co. Ltd., they set out the escape hatch. 00:16:27.539 --> 00:16:30.460 The exceptions. Right. There are three main ways 00:16:30.460 --> 00:16:32.700 the court can ignore its own previous ruling. 00:16:33.320 --> 00:16:35.960 First, if the previous decision was made per 00:16:35.960 --> 00:16:39.460 incurium, it's Latin for through lack of care. 00:16:39.799 --> 00:16:42.000 Basically, the previous court missed a relevant 00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:44.059 statute or a binding House of Lords decision. 00:16:44.379 --> 00:16:46.500 They made a mistake because they didn't see the 00:16:46.500 --> 00:16:49.820 whole picture. So oops, we goofed. Exactly. Second 00:16:49.820 --> 00:16:52.019 exception, if there are two previous Court of 00:16:52.019 --> 00:16:53.980 Appeal decisions that conflict with each other. 00:16:54.019 --> 00:16:56.159 Which happens. It happens more than you'd think 00:16:56.159 --> 00:16:59.019 in a system this big with so many cases. In that 00:16:59.019 --> 00:17:01.279 case, the current court has to act as a tiebreaker 00:17:01.279 --> 00:17:03.659 and pick one to follow. And the third. If the 00:17:03.659 --> 00:17:05.980 Supreme Court or the old House of Lorbs makes 00:17:05.980 --> 00:17:08.259 a ruling that effectively overrules the Court 00:17:08.259 --> 00:17:11.000 of Appeal, the boss's word is final. It seems 00:17:11.000 --> 00:17:13.640 like a delicate balance. You want the law to 00:17:13.640 --> 00:17:15.799 be predictable, but you don't want it to be stupid. 00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:18.640 That is the eternal tension of the common law. 00:17:18.980 --> 00:17:21.140 Young v. Bristol aeroplane is the attempt to 00:17:21.140 --> 00:17:23.799 balance that rigidity with just enough flexibility 00:17:23.799 --> 00:17:27.039 to not be absurd. So pulling this all together, 00:17:27.539 --> 00:17:31.099 we've gone from a chaotic mess of 12 courts to 00:17:31.099 --> 00:17:34.880 this highly structured, filtered, efficient engine 00:17:34.880 --> 00:17:38.460 room. What is the big takeaway here? I think 00:17:38.460 --> 00:17:41.420 the trajectory is clear. The story of the Court 00:17:41.420 --> 00:17:43.619 of Appeal is the story of professionalization. 00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:46.759 We moved from a system that was romantic but 00:17:46.759 --> 00:17:49.660 dysfunctional, with the oral readings and confusing 00:17:49.660 --> 00:17:52.380 jurisdictions, to a system that is ruthless about 00:17:52.380 --> 00:17:55.099 efficiency. The permission filters, the pre -reading, 00:17:55.319 --> 00:17:57.140 the mediation schemes, they are all designed 00:17:57.140 --> 00:17:59.359 to manage the overwhelming demand for justice. 00:17:59.640 --> 00:18:01.599 But there is a cost to that efficiency. There 00:18:01.599 --> 00:18:03.579 is. And that's the tension we should reflect 00:18:03.579 --> 00:18:06.299 on. The Court of Appeal exists to correct errors, 00:18:06.539 --> 00:18:09.319 to ensure justice is done. But every time we 00:18:09.319 --> 00:18:11.539 tighten the permission to appeal filter, we are 00:18:11.539 --> 00:18:13.720 effectively saying that finality is more important 00:18:13.720 --> 00:18:16.839 than absolute perfection. It's a pragmatic compromise. 00:18:17.240 --> 00:18:19.460 We want to get it right, but we also just need 00:18:19.460 --> 00:18:22.500 to get it done. Exactly. If we allowed every 00:18:22.500 --> 00:18:24.740 grievance to be litigated forever, the system 00:18:24.740 --> 00:18:27.480 would collapse. The filter is the price we pay 00:18:27.480 --> 00:18:30.119 to keep the machine running. And that leads to 00:18:30.119 --> 00:18:32.000 a provocative thought for everyone listening. 00:18:32.170 --> 00:18:35.970 We tend to think of justice as this pure, absolute 00:18:35.970 --> 00:18:38.690 search for truth. But looking at the Court of 00:18:38.690 --> 00:18:41.690 Appeal, it looks a lot more like resource management. 00:18:42.029 --> 00:18:44.750 As we push for more mediation and stricter filters 00:18:44.750 --> 00:18:47.289 to save money and time, are we approaching a 00:18:47.289 --> 00:18:50.069 point where good enough justice is becoming the 00:18:50.069 --> 00:18:52.289 standard? Are you comfortable with a system that 00:18:52.289 --> 00:18:54.869 might leave a few stones unturned just to keep 00:18:54.869 --> 00:18:57.009 the conveyor belt moving? It's the question every 00:18:57.009 --> 00:18:59.410 modern legal system has to answer. How much justice 00:18:59.410 --> 00:19:01.769 can we afford? Something for you to chew on. 00:19:01.980 --> 00:19:04.079 That's it for this deep dive into the engine 00:19:04.079 --> 00:19:06.619 room of English law. Thanks for listening. A 00:19:06.619 --> 00:19:07.799 pleasure. See you on the next one.