Such concerns were expressed repeatedly during the 20th century. Although the Lord Chancellor has been less likely to sit as a judge since the 1960s, he has continued to appoint judges. In addition, the administrative responsibilities of the Office for the Courts System have increased considerably as a result of reforms introduced by the Courts Act 1971, which transferred jurisdiction over many city and local government courts to central government and the Lord Chancellor. The 2005 Act reformed more than just the office of Lord Chancellor. He referred to two of the fundamental principles of our Constitution, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Although the independence of the judiciary had long been an issue mentioned in laws such as the Bill of Rights of 1689 or the Act of Settlement of 1701, this was the first time that the rule of law was explicitly mentioned in the law. Over the centuries, a general understanding had developed of what this entailed, but in light of the other changes made, it was considered important that the law should mention them and thus give them the force of law. Some of the most significant changes made by the law include: Competent. Just. A reflection of the communities they serve.

Judges play a vital role at all levels of the U.S. judicial system. The most serious criminal cases are heard by the Crown Court, usually by a circuit judge or registrar sitting with a jury (in the most serious cases, the case may be heard by a judge of the High Court with jury). In these cases, the judge is responsible for ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly and for explaining the relevant law to the jury. The jury is responsible for deciding whether the accused is guilty. In jury trials before the Crown Court, the judge oversees the selection and swearing in of jurors, informs jurors of their role in the trial to decide the facts, and warns them not to discuss the matter with anyone else or to investigate on their own. If a system of precedents brings coherence on the one hand, it is rigid on the other. Given the continuity of English law, the judiciary may be vulnerable to not anticipating changes in society`s values.

Accordingly, this paper examines the following statement in light of precedent, the interpretation of the rules of law, and whether judges should create a new right. Most people have seen a drama play on television, so they imagine a jury trial when they imagine a judge at work. So let`s take a look at a so-called „circuit judge” who hears a criminal case in the Crown Court, where serious criminal cases are „committed” (or sent). Clerks are part-time judges. For many, this is the first step on the judicial ladder leading to appointment to the circuit bench. The jurisdiction of court clerks is broadly similar to that of a district judge, but generally deals with less complex or less serious matters that are brought before the courts. We must ensure that all those who act as judges are fair. We should pay particular attention to all judicial appointments.

In recent years, there has been a concentrated attempt to fill district and district courts with far-right judges. Given the large number of cases whose final decision is made at the district or Court of Appeal level (over 90%) and the fact that some people sit on the bench for life, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. „The whole office of Lord Chancellor is a bunch of anomalies. It is a judge and contradicts the obvious principle that every part of the administration should be entrusted to a judge; It is very important that the administration of justice be kept away from sinister temptations. But the Lord Chancellor, our Chief Justice, sits in cabinet and makes party speeches in the Lords. Changes in the constitutional situation since 2003 have also had important practical consequences. These relate to the day-to-day functioning of the judiciary, the way judges are appointed and the way complaints are handled. These amendments have helped clarify the independence of the judiciary and are intended to improve accountability, public confidence and the effectiveness of the work of the judiciary. The creation of a Ministry of Justice in 2007, bringing together responsibility for criminal justice, prisons and criminal policy (previously the responsibility of the Home Secretary) and responsibility for the judicial service and mutual legal assistance (previously the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor), led to another agreement between the government and the judiciary in January 2008.