LECTURE IORIGINS OF THE ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM

In order to speak about the origins of the English legal system, the first thing that we have

to clarify is the notion of English law. The United Kingdom is made up of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland. In turn, Great Britain includes England, Scotland and Wales. All of these

countries had different bodies of law and various legal traditions and customs which co-

existed or still co-exist. Only between England and Wales has a fusion of laws taken place,

so the notions of “English law” and the “English legal system” cover the law and legal

system in application in England and Wales.

English law is made up of written laws, called statutes or Acts of Parliament and, mainly,

of a huge amount of case-law, generally referred to as common law, even if it includes

both common law and equity.

COMMON LAW

Common law did not exist at the time of the Norman Conquest. Before 1066, Anglo-Saxon

law consisted in local customs applied by assemblies of free men, called county courts.

Before William I conquered England, the country was socially atomized. There were local

laws and institutions, which often reflected the customs and traditions of previous invading

cultures, such as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, etc. For instance, in Kent, the English

region settled by the Jutes, the custom of intestate succession dictated that the land

was to be divided equally amongst the sons, whereas elsewhere the land would be

assigned to the eldest son. What is surprising is the fact that this Kentish custom survived

as an anomaly of the law of intestate succession until the 1025 reforms. Yet, the Norman

Conquest changed very little in terms of the local administration of local laws and customs.

What the Norman Conquest brought new was the development of a legal principle, namely

that tenure of land implied jurisdiction. In this way the feudal lords created their own

feudal courts, presiding over the administration of their lands and those who worked then.

These feudal courts were called baronial or manorial courts. By virtue of the

hierarchical organization of the feudal society, courts were also subject to a hierarchy.

What did that mean in practice? Well, it meant that the highest court was the King’s court

because the King, as the owner of the land, was the one who gave land directly to the

highest nobles of the realm called Tenants in Chief. In turn, the Tenants in chief gave

land to the lower lords, so the King’s court had jurisdiction over the Tenants in Chief,

while the tenants in Chief had jurisdiction over the other feudal lords. But these courts,

too, applied local customary law. Parallel to the feudal courts, ecclesiastical courts were

also created, where cases were settled by canon law, namely religious law common to all

Christendom.

William’s successors managed to make the system more efficient by creating a more

centralized and specialized form of government. This was achieved in two ways: (i) by

delegating the royal judicative power to itinerant justices, organized in circuits, who

would travel around the country holding sittings (Assizes) to hear and settle cases to be

tried in the county towns and enforce the king’s rights. The first of these circuits were

designed to raise royal revenue by enforcing the financial rights of the crown and by

“causing justice to be done”, the more so as forfeitures, fines and amercements became an

important source of royal revenue; (ii) three static royal courts of justice (Curia Regis)

were created, located at Westminster. These were the Court of the Exchequer, specialized

in the questions of royal finance (you can now understand why the British minister of

finance is called the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the Court of Common Pleas which had

a wide first instance jurisdiction in ordinary litigation among subjects and the Court of

King’s Bench which had an appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over all royal justice,

except that within the jurisdiction of the Exchequer. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the

royal court of justice had limited jurisdiction, as disputes were normally brought before the

feudal courts or the ecclesiastical courts. The King’s court only heard cases in exceptional

circumstances, it was a court for important personalities and important disputes (eg. when

the peace of the kingdom was threatened). Later on, the same judges sat at Westminster

as sat on the Assizes, so there was a high degree of uniformity in the decisions made in the

static and itinerant courts. The jurisdiction of these courts was extended until it became

common to the whole kingdom. Therefore, the law created by this jurisdiction came to be

known as common law (common to the whole of England).

Thus, given its origins, common law can be defined as the general law contained in

decided cases, as opposed to Acts of Parliament. It is that part of the law of England

formulated, developed and administered by the old common law courts, based originally on

the common customs and it is unwritten. It is the body of customary law, resting upon

judicial decisions and embodied in reports of decided cases. It is the law administered by

the common-law courts of England since the Middle Ages. From this body of law has

evolved the type of legal system found also in the United States (except for Louisiana) ,

Australia, Canada (except for Quebec), Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, new

Zealand, Pakistan, Tanzania, the Bahamas and Zambia. Common law is to be

distinguished from the law created by the enactment of the legislative bodies. It comprises

the body of principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of

persons of property, which derives their authority solely from customs or from the

judgments and decrees issued by the courts. Common law is also to be distinguished from

ecclesiastical law, because it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely

secular tribunals. In this sense, common law is based on the above-mentioned hierarchy

of the in all the jurisdictions and the principle of binding precedent, which in practice

means that the decision of a higher court is binding in a lower court, that is the decision

must be followed and in the course of a trial judges may refer to existing precedents.

Judges may also consider decisions given in lower courts, but they are not bound to follow

them. Nevertheless, a decision made by a court of equal or greater status must be applied

if it is to the point, that is relevant or pertinent. In other words, during a trial the current

case will be compared to other cases and it will be distinguished from other cases

referred to or it will be considered similar, namely it will be argued that the rule at law

reasoned and established in a previous case is applicable and should be followed. Hence

the term case law. The precedent is the rule of law which the first instance judge relied on

in determining the outcome of the case.

Initially, to submit a claim to the royal courts, which were above local problems and more

impartial than the other courts. The plaintiff had to request the Chancellor to deliver a

writ by which the royal courts could be seized of the matter. In the 12 th and 13th centuries,

writs were granted only for certain types of cases, already listed. For instance, in 1227

there were only 56 writs, but later on the list was augmented. Yet, until the mid-19 th

century, the royal courts of Westminster only heard cases submitted to them on the basis

of the writs created in the 13th century. What is important to notice is that the royal courts

tried to unify the different local customs, although they heard cases coming from all parts

of the country. The common law thus created involved a very formalistic procedure, as it

was necessary that the case should correspond exactly to one on the list. After obtaining a

writ, the claimant had to follow a very rigid procedure which was different for every writ.

If there was only a slight procedural mistake the case was dismissed or a nonsuit decision

was issued. Nevertheless, those forms of action were abolished in 1873-1875 by Acts of

Parliament called Acts of Judicature. These Acts established a uniform procedure for all

ordinary actions. But until this solution was found the procedure was so rigid that an

alternative solution to obtain justice had to be found, namely equity.

Other meanings of common law

The whole law of England, including ecclesiastical, maritime and mercantile law, as

administered in England, as distinct from that of all other countries

In French and German law, common law (droit commun) refers to the law common

to the whole area of the state as distinct from local or regional customs.

The description of the general system of law within a national jurisdiction. In this

sense it is contrasted with the notion of ‘civil law’ jurisdiction, namely the system of

law developed from Roman law.

EQUITY

Equity is a body of rules that evolved mainly in the 15th and 16th centuries to complete the

common law system which had become insufficient and defective. When the royal courts

applying the common law could not be seized of a case or could not provide an adequate

remedy, it was possible to request the king, by appealing to his conscience, to intervene

as sovereign justiciar. The King would delegate his powers to a Chancellor but neither of

them intervened to create new rules of law, they only intervened in the name of morality.

The office of Chancellor (more recently Lord Chancellor) has an ancient history. Initially,

the “cancellarius” (from Latin “cancellus” which meant a bar) was an usher who served at

the bar of a Roman court. Later an, a more illustrious form of this was to be found in the

court of Charlemagne and was transported to England by the time of Edward the

Confessor, where he became the King’s right-hand man and the most powerful official in

the realm. The Lord Chancellor headed the royal secretariat (called the Chancery) and

was responsible for the used and custody of the Great Seal of the Realm. He was also

closely associated with the administration of justice, being an important member of the

King’s Council whose duty was to consider and adjudicate upon petitions addressed to the

Council by subjects who sought justice from it as the body most close to the king. Petitions

might be presented for a variety of reasons, but mostly by people who had failed to obtain

justice in the common law courts.

In every day language, equity means natural justice, but this definition does not cover the

meaning acquired by this concept. As already stated, equity was inspired by ideas of

natural justice, but nowadays it is a particular branch of English law, it is part of the law of

England. The word equity is derived from the Latin aequitas meaning leveling.

What about the origins of equity? As stated above, in the Middle Ages the courts of

common law failed to give redress in certain types of cases where redress was necessary,

so the disappointed parties (litigants) petitioned the King, as the King was the ‘fountain of

justice’ for extraordinary relief. Through his Chancellor, the King set up a special court,

the Court of Chancery, to deal with these petitions. The rules applied by the Court of

Chancery turned into law and became part of the law of the land. Failure to obtain

justice was mainly due to three causes: (i) the common law court was in some way

defective, that is lacked the necessary legal solution to a case, (ii) the only remedy that

common law courts could usually supply was the award of damages, (iii) even if the law

was adequate to solve a case, it was not always possible to obtain justice in a common law

court due to the greatness of one of the parties. Therefore, only the Chancellor, who was

one of the chief royal officials, could remedy these defects. As he was closely associated

with the King, the Chancellor was bound by neither the rules nor the procedures of the

common law courts.

Main applications of EQUITY

The most important branches of equity are the law of trusts and the law of contracts.

For instance, in the case of trespass, common law offered damages, but did not provide a

means to have the trespasser stop. The chancellor intervened in equity and granted an

injunction ordering the defendant to stop infringing on another’s property. If the

defendant did not obey, he was sent to prison for “contempt of court”. In the case of a

breach of contract, the only remedy at common law was damages, but the aggrieved party

was much more interested in obtaining the actual performance of the contract. Therefore,

the Chancellor issued a “decree of specific performance” urging the execution of the

contract. The common law theory of consent covered only physical violence and not moral

coercion, so the Chancellor intervened against those who took unfair advantage of their

dominant position (guardians, confessors, etc) to obtain a contract. And, as far as property

matters were concerned, equity obliged trustees to respect their agreement.

A plaintiff who anted to obtain all the remedies he was entitled to, he had to bring two

successive actions – one in damages before a common law court and another one in

chancery to obtain an equitable injunction or a decree of specific performance. In such a

case, if there was ‘conflict’ between the rules of common law and the rules of equity,

equity came to prevail.

Equity and common law went on in parallel, the former complementing the latter, until

1875, when the Act of Judicature of 1873 was applied. That application resulted in the

abolition of the old courts of common law and the Court of Chancery. They were replaced

by one Supreme Court of Judicature, each branch of which had the power to administer

both common law and equity. What happened was a fusion of the administration of

common law and equity. The two systems themselves did not fuse, the rules of common

law are still distinct from the rules of equity, but both are now open to a plaintiff in one

action before the same court.

STATUTE LAW

Contrary to the general view, held by most people, statute law / Acts of Parliament has

(have) existed for 1000 years in the English legal system. The first important wave of

legislation was under Henry II (1154 – 1189). At that time legislation was made by the

King in Council, but sometimes even by a kind of parliament which consisted mainly of a

meeting of nobles and clergy summoned from their shires. In the 14th century,

parliamentary legislation became more general. Initially, the parliament contended itself

with asking the king to legislate, but later on the parliament itself presented bills. It is in

the Tudor period that the modern procedure was established of giving three readings to a

bill before it could become law. Ever since the Tudor period, Parliament became more and

more powerful and the practice of law making by statute increased. Nevertheless, statutes

became am important source of law only in the 19th and 20th centuries. After World War II,

with the intervention of the state in the economy and the creation of the Welfare State,

statute law proliferated. In case of conflict with common law or equity, statute law

prevails because no court of law or any other body can question the validity of an Act of

Parliament, as the Parliament is sovereign.

Most modern statutes require much detailed work to implement them. These details are

not usually contained in the statute, so the relevant authorities (ministries, local

authorities, etc) make up the details and issue regulation in application of the statute. This

form of law is called delegated legislation or secondary legislation . Acts of

Parliament have sovereign force, and legislation made under delegated power can be valid

only it it conforms exactly to the powers granted in the primary legislation. So, since 1972

there has existed a joint committee of the two Houses of the British Parliament which

examines every piece of delegated legislation to check whether the respective piece of

legislation does not exceed the limits established by the statutory framework. The

committee issues an opinion as to the validity of that piece of legislation, but only a court

of law can declare the delegated/secondary legislation invalid.

The Magna Carta

This major piece of legislation was first enacted in 1215. King John was forced to accept it

under threat of civil war. It was the earliest attempt to limit the powers of the monarch

and define the extent of the rights and liberties of subjects. The Magna Carta required

King John of England to proclaim certain rights (mainly of his barons), respect certain

legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected

certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of

habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. Magna Carta was arguably

the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule

of constitutional law today in the English speaking world. Magna Carta influenced the

development of the common law and many constitutional documents, including the United

States Constitution. Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a

group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect

their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I

voluntarily stated what his own powers were under the law. Magna Carta is normally

understood to refer to a single document, that of 1215. Various amended versions of the

Magna Carta appeared in subsequent years however, and it is the 1297 version which

remains on the statute books of England and Wales.

In 1297, Magna Carta was re-enacted and it was confirmed by Edward I. The re-enacted

version can be considered as a declaration of certain fundamental principles, such as :

1. no one shall lose his life and liberty “except by lawful judgement of his equals and

by the law of the land”

2. the king should not sell, deny or delay justice

3. punishment should be in relation to the seriousness of the crime

For modern times, the most enduring legacy of Magna Carta is considered to be the right

of habeas corpus. In 1679, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Act was passed. The Habeas

Corpus Act 1679 was passed by the Parliament of England during the reign of King

Charles II to define and strengthen the ancient prerogative writ of habeas corpus

whereby persons unlawfully detained can be ordered to be prosecuted before a court of

law. Though amended, it remains on the statute book to this day. The Act contains

provisions ensuring that persons imprisoned without legal cause, whether by the Crown or

by private individuals should, on obtaining a writ of habeas corpus, have their detention

examined by a judge within a set period of time.

THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT

The starting point from which to explain the English doctrine of precedent is the principle

of justice that like cases should be decided alike. This principle is enforced in English law

by the rule of stare decisis (Latin term which means to observe the previous decisions,

namely the precedent). This rules is almost universally applied in all jurisdiction

throughout the world, but it has a specific coercive or binding nature in the English

system. Such binding nature comes from the rules of practice applied by English judges,

called rules of precedent. These rules state that, to a large extent, English law is based

on case-law. Case-law consists of the rules and principles acted on by the judges in giving

decisions when trying a case. At the same time, the English system obliges a judge trying a

new case to look back to see how previous judges have dealt with previous cases

(precedents) involving similar facts. This is different from the other jurisdictions, where

the rules and principles used by a judge to give a decision in a past case are regarded as

material the new, current judge may take into consideration, but he is not bound to do it.

Therefore, in the English system, a judge’s decision in a particular case constitutes a

‘precedent’. The standing of the rules of precedent depends on the status of the court

which decided the case. The decisions of the House of Lords are treated with the greatest

respect, whereas the decision of a county court judge has normally limited effect. This

approach has developed into a system under which precedents of the superior courts, if

relevant to the facts of the case, are “binding” on lower courts.

But, it must not be imagined that the law is always discoverable by the simple procedure

of looking up and finding the right precedent. Life teaches us that fact are infinitely

various and by no means all cases are exactly covered by previous decisions. On the

contrary, the facts in question often resemble two or more divergent decisions, that is why,

in such circumstances, the courts have freedom of choice in deciding which decision to

follow. Further more, cases of first impression arise even today, namely cases in which

the facts bear no resemblance to the facts in any previous case. In such a case, when the

judge rules, he legislates, in other words he establishes a precedent that future courts

must follow.

HOW A BILL BECOMES AN ACT IN THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

1. First Reading – the Bill is formally introduced into the House of Commons

2. Second Reading – there is a general debate on the floor of the House and then a

vote is taken. The vote may have two results: (i) a majority vote in favour of the Bill

or (ii) no majority vote in favour of the Bill. In the first case (affirmative majority

vote) the Standing Committee examines the Bill clause by clause and considers the

amendments. In the second case (no majority vote in favour), the Bill is rejected or

re-introduced in an amended form.

3. After examination by the Standing Committee, the Bill is ‘reported’ back to the

House for the Third Reading, which allows further general debate. After the 3rd

Reading a new vote is taken. The vote may have two results: (i) a majority vote in

favour of the Bill or (ii) no majority vote in favour of the Bill. In the first case

(affirmative majority vote), the Bill is sent to the House of Lords for a similar

procedure. In the second case (no majority vote in favour), the Bill is rejected or re-

introduced in an amended form.

4. The Bill is examined in the House of Lords. A vote is then taken, which may have

two results: (i) a majority vote in favour of the Bill or (ii) no majority vote in favour

of the Bill. In the first case (affirmative majority vote), the Bill is sent forward for the

monarch to give the Royal Assent (to be signed by the sovereign ). After the Royal

Assent, the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

5. In the second case (no majority vote in favour), the Bill is referred back to the House

of Commons. The Bill is re-passed by the House of Commons in identical form in two

successive sessions, with at least 1 year separating the 2nd Reading in the 1st session

from the 3rd Reading in the 2nd session, then the rejections of the House of Lords are

finally overruled. As yet, this statutory procedure has not been invoked.

THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT

In England the ultimate legislator is the Parliament because in the English traditional

constitutional theory parliament is sovereign. This means that all legislative power within

the realm is vested in Parliament or it is derived from the authority of Parliament, and it

also means that there is no legal limit to the power of Parliament. Parliament enacts

legislation and also delegates legislative power to other bodies or even individuals, but it

may also, by ACT, remove these powers as simply as it has conferred them. Thus,

Parliament is sovereign in matters of legislation enactment, but the courts also have an

influence upon the development of enacted law. How so? Well, in order to be applied,

every enactment, however it be promulgated, has to be interpreted by the courts, the

role of which as interpreters of law is generally recognized.

THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM

The origins of the American law can be traced back to the founding of the English colonies

which were governed by common law and equity. Statute law, which already existed in the

mother country, was also imported and applied in the colonies. Later on, after the

American War of Independence, in 1789, the Constitution was ratified and the American

system was established, including a federal system of government, laws and courts, in

other words the powers of the stated were officially separated into the executive branch,

the legislative branch and the judiciary branch.

The Constitution stipulates that this very document can be amended and also each branch

of power can intervene in the decisions made by the other two. These interventions go by

the set phrase of checks and balances.

For instance, Congress (the legislative branch of power) has powers over the President

whose appropriations of money they control (US – appropriation bill ). The Congress

can also override the President’s veto, they can impeach him and finally remove him after

investigating the President’s conduct. Congress also have power over the Supreme Court

(the judiciary branch of power) as they fix the size of the Court and control its money

appropriations. Congress impeach and remove judges, confirm the nomination of judges an

create inferior federal courts, as defined by Article III of the Constitution. The Senate (the

upper house of the American Congress) is the one which confirms the appointment by the

President of judges and Cabinet members, therefore the appointment of the Attorney-

General as well.

The President can veto bills in Congress, he also appoints federal judges and may grant

pardon for federal crimes.

The Supreme Court interpret statutes and administrative regulations and determine their

constitutionality. This process is known under the name of judicial review .

In 1791, Congress ratified 10 amendments to the Constitution. These amendments make

up what is known as the Bill of Rights. Amendment X to the Constitution gave birth to the

State governments, the structure of which is identical to the structure of the Federal

government, namely state governments have a written constitution, a state senate and a

state assembly, a governor assisted by a lieutenant governor and a state supreme court.

According to the provisions of the Constitution, powers were distributed between the

federal government and the state governments. Both types of governments have the power

of taxation, they also have concurrent powers (joint, simultaneous) in the field of business

regulations (for instance antitrust laws, unfair competition, advertising and corporation

securities).

By virtue of the principle of separation of powers, the three branches of government

have different responsibilities, as follows: (i) Congress legislates in civil and criminal

matters, (ii) the President and his administration see to the implementation of the law and

(iii) the federal courts make decisions on civil and criminal cases.

The federal government controls foreign affairs and matters of general interest

(currency, the military, immigration, foreign and domestic trade, patents of inventions,

copyrights and bankruptcies). There are a number of agencies (also called boards,

authorities, commissions and departments) which control a lot of other activities. These

agencies make and enforce rules and have quasi-judicial powers.

The fifty state enact legislation dealing with family relations and private property, the

creation of business organizations, the licensing of professionals as well as public safety

and morals.

The American legal system is based first on English common law, from which it borrowed

the rule of precedent, then on the Constitution together with its statutes, rules and

regulations drawn up by the government agencies. Thus, the hallmark of the American

system is this combination of civil law and common law. In this system, substantive law

covering both private matters (contracts, torts = delicate civile, property, business

organizations, family law, coomercial law) and public matters (constitutional,

administrative, labor, tax and criminal law and also trade regulation) as well as

procedural law are founded both on the federal constitution and the decisions of the US

Supreme Court and the fifty states’ constitutions together with the decisions of the fifty

states’ courts. The American system of justice has some important features, namely

continuity, flexibility, judicial review and judicial independence.

HOW A BILL BECOMES AN ACT IN THE AMERICAN CONGRESS

1.The American Congress is made up of two houses – the lower one called the House of

Representatives and the upper one called the Senate. Both senators and

representatives may propose bills.

2. The bills go to the full committees and then to the various subcommittees to be

studied, read and approved. Hearings are organized to debate on the proposed bills.

3. After being studied by the subcommittees, the bills return to the full committees for

more hearings and revisions on the amendments proposed by the subcommittees. In

the end, after debates on the floor of the respective house (chamber ), the bill may be

passed or defeated (rejected).

4. If the bill passes, it will go through the same procedure in the other house

(chamber). A final vote is taken on the floor of the second house to decide whether the

bill is passed or is defeated.

5. If the bill passes in the second chamber as well, a committee of conference is

established. The committee of conference includes representatives of both houses and

its task is to work out a compromise version to be sent to each of the two houses for

final approval.

6. If the compromise bill has the unanimity of both houses it is sent to the White House

for the President to promulgate it.

7. The President can either sign it into a law or veto it and return it to Congress.

8. If the Bill is returned to Congress, the bill can be enacted without the President’s

signature with only a two-third majority in each House of Congress.

LEGAL ENGLISH WORKSHOP I (Applied Modern Languages MA Programme)Fall semester, 2009-2010Course instructor: Roxana-Cristina Petcu, PhD

I. Find the correct definition for each of the legal terms below: Authority; court; govern; judge; law enforcement agency; lawyers; legal action; legal system; legislation; rule; tribunal; the judiciary

1. a body that is appointed to make a judgement or inquiry2. a country’s body of judges3. an act or acts passed by a law-making body4. behaviour recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority5. legal proceedings6. on official body that has authority to try criminals, resolve disputes, or make other legal

decisions7. an organization responsible for enforcing the laws, especially the police8. a senior official in a court of law9. the body or system of rules recognized by a community that are enforceable by established

process10. the control resulting from following a community’s system of rules

11. members of the legal profession12. to rule a society and control the behaviour of its members

II. Fill in the blanks using the legal concepts below:

Authority; court; govern; judge; law enforcement agency; lawyers; legal action; legal system; legislation; rule; tribunal; the judiciary

Why do we have laws and ________ ? At one level, laws can be seen as a type of ______ which is meant to _____ behaviour between people. We can find these rules in nearly all social organizations, such as families and sports clubs. Law, the body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions and _______ , is used to govern a society and to control the behaviour of its members. In modern societies, a body with ______ , such as a ________ or the legislature, makes the law; and a ________ , such as the police, makes sure it is observed. In addition to enforcement, a body of expert ________ is needed to apply the law. This is the role of ________ , the body of _________ in a particular country. Of course, legal systems vary between countries, as well as the basis for bringing a case before a court or _________ . One thing, however, seems to be true all over the world – starting a _______ is both expensive and time-consuming.

III. Match the legal terms (1-10) below with their correct definitions (A-J)

1. intestate succession ; 2. fine ; 3.the Assizes ; 4. Tenants in Chief ; 5. tenure of land ; 6. forfeiture ; 7. an itinerant court ; 8. first instance jurisdiction ; 9. equity ; 10. stare decisis

A. the principles of binding precedent; B. ownership of property; C. a court that moves from town to town; D. loss of property or of a right as a result of an offence; E. the law concerning the transmission of a dead person’s estate to the beneficiaries when there is no will; F. Norman noblemen given their land directly by the King; G. the power of a court to hear and judge a new case; H. a system of law complementary to common law; I. a sum of money that an offender must pay when ordered to do so by a legal authority as punishment for the offence; J. sittings of court presided over by judges who would travel around the country.

IV. Define the following legal concepts:

1. an injunction; 2. the ‘fountain of justice’; 3. case law ; 4. the Court of Chancery ; 5.redress

V. Complete the definitions below:

1. ___________________ is law relating to acts committed against the law which are punished by the state.

2. ___________________ is concerned with the constitution or government of the state, or the relationship between state and citizens.

3. ___________________ is concerned with the rights and duties of individuals, organizations, and associations (such as companies, trade unions, charities), as opposed to criminal law.

4. _________________ is rules which determine how a case is administered by the courts.5. _________________ is common law and statute law used by the courts in making decisions.6. _________________ is the body which has the function of making law.7. _________________ means legislation which begins life as drafts called Bills.8. _________________ is the right to check the legality and constitutionality of secondary

legislation.9. _________________ means that the three branches of government have different

responsibilities.10. _________________ is the American minister of justice.

VI. Find the verbs that best complete the collocations below:

1. _______ Acts of Parliament; 2. _________ into a law (US); 3. ______new statutes; 4. _________ existing legislation; 5. ___________ obsolete law; 6. _______ the President’s veto; 7. ________ the Royal Assent to turn a bill into a legal enactment; 8. ______ a bill on the floor of a Parliament Chamber ; 9._______ powers to a lower body; 10. ________ the President’s appropriations of money.

VII. Fill in the blanks in text bellow using the words/phrases in the list:

Private Members Bills; become law; submit to; introduce; re-present; drafting of the legislation; reading; undertake; debate; approve; government Bills; enshrine the principle; Private Acts; scrutinise the provisions; Public Acts; propose.

All Acts must be ________ both Houses of Parliament in the draft form of a Bill. The legislative process involves three ________ in both Houses. At the first reading, the title is read to the MPs; at the second reading, MPs _____ the proposals. Then a standing committee will ___________ in the Bill and may amend it to ensure that it _____________ debated and ___________ at the second reading. This is reported back to the MPs. At the third reading, the Bill is _________ . The Bill then goes through readings in the other house. The actual _________ is __________ by Parliamentary Counsel. Finally, a Bill must receive Royal Assent from the monarch before it ___________ on a specified date. In fact, this stage has been reduced to a formal reading of the short title of an Act in both Houses of parliament and is now a formality. _________ are __________ by the Government; ____________ are _________ by MPs. Both methods may result in _________ that govern the general public. ________ affect particular individuals or institutions.

VIII. Fill in the blanks in text bellow using the words/phrases in the list:

Uniform laws; federal; governor; Congress; pre-empt; state; jurisdiction; void; codify; legislatures; throw out; statutes; federal legislative body; competence.

In the USA, legislation takes place at two levels: the ______ and the ________ . Federal legislation is superior to state legislation in its areas of _________ . It is said to ______ state legislation where there is a conflict. Any state legislation which conflicts with the federal laws is ______ . It should also be noted that the US Supreme Court has the power to _______ any legislation not in keeping with the US Constitution. The ____________ is the _________, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. State, headed by a _______, have their own ________ (consisting of two house, except in Nebraska). States have ___________ over all matters not reserved to the federal competence. In the USA, each state has its own set of ______ and most jurisdictions have now ________ a substantial part of their laws. ________ are also important. As each state has its own law, the idea behind the development of uniform laws was to cut down the differences in law between the various states of America. The most successful uniform law is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).

IX. Give the Romanian equivalent of the following English legal terms:

aggrieved/prejudiced party; decree of specific performance; dispute; to enact; to enforce the law; to impeach the president; judicial independence; nonsuit; to prevail; tort; to vest in; delegated legislation.

X. Give the English equivalent of the following l Romanian legal terms:

a face dreptate; jurisprudenta; proiect de lege financiara; a numi pe cineva in functie; a propune pe cineva pentru o functie; hotarare judecatoreasca; echilibrul puterilor (US); drept material; profesii liberale; proiect de lege; lege votata de parlament; precedent cu forta juridica obligatorie.

XI. Translate into Romanian

A. Politicians on trial in France. Liberty, equality—not impunity. Jacques Chirac, a former president of France, faces trial for corruption

A DECISION by an investigating judge to send Jacques Chirac, a former president, to stand trial in a court is without precedent in modern French history. Mr Chirac is accused

of “misappropriation of public funds” during his time as mayor of Paris. The decision comes in a month in which the entrails of France’s one-time ruling elite have been spilling out. A former interior minister, Charles Pasqua, was this week sentenced to a year in prison (and a suspended sentence of two years) for involvement in arms trafficking to Angola. A former prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, has also been tried in connection with a smear campaign and is awaiting a verdict. The case against Mr Chirac concerns 21 “fake jobs” that were allegedly created for friends at the Paris town hall, where he held office between 1977 and 1995. As long as he was president, from 1995 to 2007, Mr Chirac was immune from prosecution, and his lawyer has argued that he remains so for acts carried out during his time in office. This has frustrated various investigating judges over the years, who have compiled numerous dossiers concerning Mr Chirac, all of which have been dropped, in some cases because the statute of limitations had expired. Many observers expected the same to happen with the last remaining case, especially after the public prosecutor, himself appointed by Mr Chirac, judged that there was not enough evidence to take it to court. Yet in a bold move Xavière Simeoni, the investigating judge leading the case against the ex-president, decided otherwise. It remains uncertain whether the case will reach court. The prosecutor may appeal against the decision, which would delay any proceedings. Mr Chirac's office said that he was “serene” about the matter, and confident that he could demonstrate that the jobs were real. But if found guilty Mr Chirac could face ten years in prison. It is the first time under France's fifth republic that a former head of state has been ordered to stand trial.The decision comes at the end of a highly charged month which has cast light on all manner of murky dealings at the heart of the French elite, many of them during Mr Chirac's presidency. The judgment this week in the arms-trafficking case to Angola concerned the supply, in contravention of a United Nations arms embargo, of landmines, shells, tanks, helicopters and naval vessels to the Angolan government between 1993 and 1998, during its civil war. Mr Pasqua, who has appealed against his conviction, was Mr Chirac's interior minister. Among the dozens of other defendants, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, son of the Socialist former president and his father’s Africa adviser at the time, was fined for embezzlement and given a two-year suspended prison sentence. Pierre Falcone, a French arms dealer, and Arkady Gaydamak, an Israeli-Russian businessman, were each sentenced to six years imprisonment.The French political class has also been gripped this month by a trial over the “Clearstream” smear-campaign. Mr de Villepin, who was prime minister under Mr Chirac, has been accused of helping to spread a fake list of names linking Nicolas Sarkozy, then a fellow government minister and fierce rival, and other politicians to false bank accounts supposedly containing kickbacks from arms deals. Prosecutors have asked for an 18-month suspended sentence against Mr de Villepin for complicity in slander, and jail terms for two others. Mr de Villepin has denied all the charges. The verdict is due in January.The consequences of all this for President Sarkozy are likely to be limited. He served in government under Mr Chirac, and is from the same political family, but was also his fierce rival and campaigned for office against Mr Chirac's record. Mr Sarkozy is unconnected to the Angola trial and he is a civil plaintiff in the Clearstream case. Still, the conviction of Mr Pasqua does raise questions about the political milieu in which he made his name. Mr Pasqua was head of the Hauts-de-Seine council, the department that includes the posh suburb of Neuilly, where Mr Sarkozy was first elected mayor, and became his political godfather. The “Angolagate” trial has strained relations between France and the oil-rich former Portuguese colony. In May last year Mr Sarkozy made a one-day trip there to try to smooth relations. In many ways, this series of trials gives France a dismal image. A class of politicians seems to have been up to no good for a long period of time, and to have assumed that the timorous French justice system would never act. This month's events, however, have suggested exactly the opposite: that forthright investigating judges can still hold politicians to account.

B. The fruits of office. The government drafts new laws to constrain the magistracy

SILVIO BERLUSCONI is a man of perseverance. Two months after winning the Italian election, he is starting to deal with the judicial system, and those working in it, as robustly as when he was last in power, in 2001-06. During the campaign he said prosecutors should undergo checks on their mental health. Now more attacks on the magistracy and bespoke laws to protect himself and his business interests seem to be priorities once again. On June 17th Renato Schifani, speaker of the Senate, read a letter from Mr Berlusconi backing an amendment proposed by two senators that would stop for a year all trials for crimes committed before June 2002, except for those the government deems most serious. Some critics say this is unconstitutional, as it interferes with the requirement that trials should be of reasonable duration and that due legal process must be observed. Mr Berlusconi is on trial in Milan accused of judicial corruption, along with a British lawyer who helped to establish a secret offshore network of companies for Mr Berlusconi's business empire. Now nearing its end, this trial would be among those to be halted. The amendment was passed by the Senate on June 18th. In his letter, Mr Berlusconi claimed that many cases have been brought against him by extreme left-wing magistrates for political ends. He has also told Mr Schifani that he wants legislation to suspend trials involving the holders of Italy's highest offices of state. Mr Schifani was behind a similar law in 2003 that was later ruled unconstitutional. Mr Berlusconi's intrusions into the criminal-justice system are also hitting the use of intercepts in investigations. On June 13th the government approved a bill to limit what magistrates can do and the media may report. Cases for which eavesdropping would be banned include fraudulent bankruptcy, market abuse and insider trading. The government claims that cases involving organised crime and terrorism will not be affected. But Armando Spataro, a prosecutor in Milan, says limits on the use of interception devices could hinder investigations into terrorism. And Franco Roberti, an anti-Mafia magistrate in Naples, notes that many investigations into organised crime begin with ordinary crimes such as extortion, loan-sharking and contraband, for which listening-in will be forbidden. The bill would also gag the magistracy and the press, threatening imprisonment to prosecutors who talk about cases and journalists whose articles use information gleaned from investigations. A new plan to get thousands of soldiers to act as policemen in such cities as Bologna, Trieste and Venice appears to be a smokescreen for the government's real approach to crime: hard on some offences, but soft on others. Behind the smokescreen, Mr Berlusconi is gathering the fruits of office again.

XII. Translate into English:

A. 1. Legile scrise reprezinta legislatia adoptata de parlament si promulgata de suveran. 2. Principiile common law pot fi amendate sau abolite printr-o lege adoptata de parlament. 3. Puterea legislativa nelimitat a parlamentuluik este un principiu fundamental al dreptului constitutional britanic. 4. Ca urmare a dotrinei suveranitatii parlamentului, in cazul unui conflict de drept, dreptul scris prevaleaza ata fata de common law cat si fata de equity. 5. Equity a atenuat rigiditatea specifica pentru common law si a facut astfel incat hotararile justitiei sa nu fie nici nedrepte si nici contrare constiintei morale. 6. In SUA, Congresul isi exercita controlul asupra presedintelui prin supravegherea legilor de natura financiara, prin faptul ca ii poate rasturna dreptul de veto si prin aceea ca il poate pune sub acuzatie si demite. 7. Interventiile unei dintre puterile statului in hotararile celorlalte doua sunt cunoscute sub numele de “echilibrul puterilor”. 8. Congresul are puterea de a da ata legi penale cat si legi civile (SUA). 9. Presedintele si guvernul sau vegheaza la aplicarea legilor(SUA). 10. Curtea Suprema americana stabileste constitutionalitatea legilor scrise si a legislatiei secundare, adica are dreptul de a analiza legislatia din punct de vedere al legalitatii si constitutioanlitatii. 11. Guvernul federal american controleaza relatiile externe

ca si problemele de interes general national. 12. Legislatia celor 50 de state se ocupa de dreptul familiei, al proprietatii private, de infiintarea de firme, de organizarea si practicarea profesiilor liberale ca si de mentinerea sigurantei publice si a normelor de moralitate publica. 13. Principalele trasaturi ale sistemului juridic american sunt continuitatea, flexibilitatea, verificarea constitutionalitatii ca si independenta puterii judecatoresti. 14. Constitutiile celor 50 de state ca si hotararile date de curtile de justitie statale au uhn impact la nivel federal. 15. Faptul ca legile votate de statele americane ca si hotararile judecatoresti atat la nivel statal cat si la nivel federal sunt atat de diferite a dat nastere nevoii de uniformizare.

B. Prostituata cumparata de jurnalistii de la «Daily Mail», trimisa in judecata

Monica Ghinga, in vârsta de 25 de ani, din Iasi, este prostituata de aproape noua ani. In noiembrie 2007, doi jurnalisti britanici au venit în România si s-au dat drept proprietarii unei case de toleranta din Londra pentru a testa cât de usor se poate cumpara o prostituata românca minora. Acestia au abordat-o pe Monica Ghinga, care iesise “la agatat” in apropierea unei benzinarii din Iasi. Cu gândul la bani, fata a mintit in privinta vârstei, spunând ca are doar 14 ani si ca accepta propunerea de a intretine relatii sexuale contra sumei de 800 de euro. Cei doi britanici au fost de acord. Dupa ce a lasat banii la colege, o practica intâlnita in råndul prostituatelor fara proxenet, tânara a urcat in taxi cu cei doi, crezând ca va merge la un hotel. Masina a mers insa intr-o alta directie. “Dupa blocarea portierelor, am realizat ca ceva nu este in ordine si atunci am sunat-o pe colega mea, spunându-i ca am probleme, dar unul dintre barbati mi-a luat telefonul mobil si l-a inchis”, a povestit Monica in fata politistilor. Fara acordul sau, tânara a fost dusa intr-un centru pentru ocrotire a victimelor din Pitesti si internata sub o alta identitate. Monica a stat aici aproape trei saptamâni, timp in care a incercat sa fuga pe geamul de la bucatarie si sa se automutileze cu o lama. La sfârsitul lunii noiembrie, aceasta a reusit sa se reintoarca la Iasi. Intre timp, cei doi jurnalisti s-au intors in Marea Britanie. Articolul intitulat “Un adevar socant despre traficul de fiinte umane: o fata de 14 ani lucreaza ca si sclava sexuala”, purtând semnatura jurnalistului de investigatie Chris Rogers, facea deschiderea editiei ziarului Daily Mail din data de 25 ianuarie 2008. In acest articol, ziaristul britanic povestea cum, la inceputul lunii noiembrie 2007, a reusit sa cumpere o minora in vârsta de 14 ani din Iasi, Monica Ghinga, pentru suma de 800 de euro. Potrivit acestuia, negocierea pentru cumpararea fetei s-a facut cu trei persoane, intr-o benzinarie din Iasi. Dupa achitarea sumei, Rogers sustine ca a plecat cu fata intr-un taxi, devenind noul ei “stapân”. Politia a anchetat evenimentul si nu s-a luat nici o masura pentru ca fata nu a depus plângere ca a fost rapita. Potrivit politistilor ieseni, fata nu a acceptat neaparat sa mearga cu cei doi pentru prostitutie, ci ca sa ii insele. Impreuna cu o alta prietena, a vrut sa «ii tepuiasca»”. Linistita, Monica a revenit la vechiul job, desi a fost condamnata la trei luni de inchisoare in 2001, iar in anii care au urmat a fost de mai multe ori amendata pentru ca acosta barbati si le propunea sex contra cost. Teancul de amenzi neachitate, dar si dosarul gros de la politie au fost analizate de procurorii care au trimis-o in judecata, sub acuzatia de prostitutie, urmând a fi judecata in stare de libertate.