Local Court and Justice

Introduction
This paper examines the implications of Mcbarnet’s analysis of “two tiers of justice” and its impact on the criminal justice system. The first part of this paper focuses on the sharp distinctions between lower and higher criminal courts. It also intends to highlight various issues stemmed from this distinction. The second part of the paper attempts to unveil the unfairness of court proceedings and explore why criminal law, combined with our justice system; though not necessarily the best way to achieve social objective, may nonetheless be the most appropriate and objective code of behavior to maintain the good order and regulation of society.

Criminal law is the product of a gradual historical process[1] and acts as a code of behavior that governs and maintains the order of society. In this regard, criminal courts perform the function of ensuring this code of behavior is observed by imposing punishment on perpetrators. Before considering the appropriateness of limit to the role that criminal law is expected to play, we must first consider whether both lower and higher courts, marked by their dissimilarities, are equally capable to perform their role in this area- maintain justice.

Part 1 Two tiers of justice: efficiency and formality
The major difference between lower and higher criminal courts is that the former emphasizes on efficiency, while the latter concentrates on formal and strict adversarial procedures.   MaBarnet noted that:
    The law has created two tiers of justice, one which is geared in its ideology and generality at least to the structure of legality, and one which, quite simply and explicitly, is not.[2]
This view was not seen as exaggerating, but widely adopted, for the sheer blatancy of this distinction.

The architecture of courts
Comparing the Local court and District court locate at Downing Centre to the Supreme Court at King Street; physically, the layout of courtrooms are similar. Every courtroom is equipped with...