Talk:Court of Appeal (England and Wales)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

One slight edit to correct the Court of Appeal's criminal jurisdiction. It only hears appeals from the Crown Court; appeals from magistrates' courts are heard in the Crown Court or in the High Court by way of case stated.. 15:43, 12th May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.226.123 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied up this page and removed some confusing material about which judges could sit (or couls be required to sit) in the CA, which didn't look accurate (eg seemed to confuse circuit judges with High Court judges) and wasn't very interesting. Added a bit about where appeals come from, but it's rather vague. This page could still do with attention. Chris R 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of courts

"Her Majesty's Court of Appeal is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords above it." So the Privy Council is the third most senior court? Apokrif 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the Privy Council is not part of the English Legal system, its an odd statement but kinda true. The Privy council has no binding power on lower courts, as the House of lords does, its decisions are entirely to do with the Commonweath.Ricohard1986 (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a stupid thing to say, and a dumb way to describe the court of appeal. There isn't really a concept of "seniority" in the law of England. For most purposes, the only court which is precedentially binding on the Court of Appeal is the House of Lords (lets not argue about the "Judicial Committee" nonsense), but that is about all that can usefully be said. Francis Davey 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true, the Court of Appeal is also horizontally binding, namely it is precedentially binding upon itself. Ricohard1986 (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Court of Appeals

Please see my move proposal at Talk:Court of Appeals#Rename this article?. --Mathew5000 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When were regular procedures for criminal appeals established?

The Wikipedia article on Adolph Beck states:

As a direct result of the case, important reforms resulted, including the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

It also refers the reader to 'Criminal Appeal Act, 1907 (U.K.), 7 Edw. VII, c. 23'.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adolf_Beck_case

However, this article makes absolutely no mention of any extension of the role of the Court of Appeal in 1907. For ordinary users of Wikipedia this is unhelpful and very confusing. Norvo (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Court of Criminal Appeal was a totally distinct body from the Court of Appeal. They were merged in the 60s, as both articles note. Ironholds (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your speedy and helpful reply. Norvo (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Let me know if you have any further questions :). Ironholds (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Court article question

Can anyone answer the High Court article question posted at this link? Thank you in advance. Bo99 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure for Appeal

Paragraph 5 is hard to understand.

English is not my mother tongue, and I am not educated in English law. I wanted to know why appeal of the Article 50 ruling goes directly to the Supreme Court, and not to the Court of Appeal. I still don't know.

The first sentence of paragraph 5 is extremely long, but to me it reads like this: In rejecting ... with "Refused as ..." access to the ECJ (according to ... where it is said: "...") the UK Court of Appeal completely stops cases to be brought to the ECJ.

The last part of that phrase should read: "... to be brought before the ECJ." That's not my point.

"Access to the ECJ" is what part of that sentence? I think I roughly know what the whole sentence intends to say, but in my opinion it needs some re-writing.

George Rolf (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Court of Appeal of England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. After over 2 weeks, we have a reasonably strong consensus that the present title doesn't appear in sources enough to make for workable natural disambiguation. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Appeal of England and Wales → Court of Appeal (England and Wales) – The name of the Court is fixed by the Senior Courts Act 1981 (as amended by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005; originally entitled the Supreme Court Act 1981). The Court has always been simply called "the Court of Appeal", and in legal "shorthand" in neutral citation, the COA, full stop. [1][2] 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Disamabiguation is clearly needed and that seems agreed (but just see Court of appeal (disambiguation) if further evidence is needed), and natural disambiguation is preferred. Andrewa (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The current title is inaccurate and misleading. The court's name is Court of Appeal, as given in the article's first sentence, and "(England and Wales)" would disambig. If its name is not used, and given that it hears appeals both civil and criminal, the title could be "Appeals court in England and Wales". Qexigator (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The official name counts for very little here (which surprises many, but there are reasons for this policy). So it's not inaccurate at all. Why is it misleading? "Appeals court in England and Wales" would be better than the proposed parenthetical disambiguation, but why is it preferred to the current title? Andrewa (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa's comment is mistaken. The current title is self-evidently inaccurate, misleading and inconsistent with both the article content and the known facts, and therefore not well-suited to this or any other publication purporting to be a seriously intended and reliably informative encyclopedia. Qexigator (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very common misconception. Please see WP:AT. Or the essay at wp:correct might be of more help, of course it doesn't have the same level of authority but it says exactly the same thing, just in a more approachable way. Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ There appears to be no significant ambiguity with other jurisdictions in UK or United States courts of appeals (and see Judiciary Act of 1891 and Appellate court), or other countries, such as Federal Court of Appeal (Canada), or Australia's High Court, and see Court of appeal (disambiguation). Qexigator (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me there. If there's no significant ambiguity, are you saying that the undisambiguated name Court of Appeal could be used? Surely not? Andrewa (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

++Regular editors here may be aware that "Court of Appeal of England and Wales" is a misnomer, and appears nowhere in the article and seldom if ever in professional literature, or in RS. The title for another article Courts of England and Wales, is suited to that topic, and its content does not make the error of using "Court of Appeal of England and Wales". Qexigator (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're finally getting to the bottom of your firm opinions on the subject. It may well be a misnomer and objectionable to you, but this is not the place to correct that; If this name is used in reliable sources, we can use it here. This is being discussed with Jenks24 below, suggest you join in there. Andrewa (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the stringing which you disrupted, and raised it on your user talk page. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Andrewa has not yet noticed or understood the distinction (no less valid in Wikipedia than elsewhere) between use of a name such as Court of Appeal and a homophone such as "court of appeal", which could be self-evident to most editors who have read the article, even with little prior knowledge of the topic, and are willing to address the point under discussion by others here. Qexigator (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I very much wish we would use that distinction more often and consistently in Wikipedia, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be self-evident to most editors.... It's a rather subtle point, and one that Wikipedia tends to understand in terms of nineteenth-century notions of proper nouns as still taught in most primary schools, rather than more recent and useful linguistic approaches. Quite prepared to elaborate for anyone interested, but exactly what is the relevance here? You are making a distinction marked by capitalisation, obviously; How does it help? Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am inclined to agree that "Court of Appeal of England and Wales" is very rarely used in reliable sources and hence is unsuitable for natural disambiguation. If I'm incorrect about that, please provide sources to the contrary. Additionally, in my looking around on this topic I noticed that Britannica effectively used "Court of Appeal (British court)". Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snag is, it is not strictly a "British" court, but "British court" redirects to Courts of the United Kingdom and that is more suited to first sentence than English legal system.[3] Qexigator (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't proposing to use "British court" as disambiguation (it's less precise), just showing an example of how a similar work to Wikipedia has effectively disambiguated their article. Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious Jenks24, but exactly what are agreeing with? That's a new argument, and a good one.

The question is, how commonly does it need to be used to be suitable for natural disambiguation? The current title is certainly not a made-up term, I get 195,000 ghits (your results may vary for many reasons) and the first few all look reliable and relevant. See https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Court_of_Appeal_of_England_and_Wales.html for example (which also uses the formal name, but that would fail recognisability IMO). Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I probably started writing with a different thought in my head, you're right that it doesn't specifically agree with anything already written. Your question about how often it needs to be used to be suitable is a fair one and not something I think we (as a community) have ever explicitly come together to discuss before. Your Google search is somewhat convincing to me, there are some better results there than when I was searching books and scholar (although both obviously did have examples of it in use). Probably mark me down as a weak support for now. I'm not sure what that last link is supposed to demonstrate, it looks like a Wikipedia mirror to me. Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24: Agree very rarely used in reliable sources, and as above remarked, "Court of Appeal of England and Wales" is a misnomer, and appears nowhere in the article and seldom if ever in professional literature, or in RS. The title for another article Courts of England and Wales, is suited to that topic, and its content does not make the error of using "Court of Appeal of England and Wales". Qexigator (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but is there any evidence of this? See #Use in reliable sources below. Andrewa (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the common name is "Court of Appeal", and I'm not convinced there are enough uses of the present title to justify natural disambiguation in this instance, per the discusscion on Jenks24's !vote above. — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Use in reliable sources

The claim is made above that the current title Court of Appeal of England and Wales is very rarely used in reliable sources and is therefore unsuitable for natural disambiguation. I have provided evidence above that this is not the case. Is more required, or is there evidence that it is not used?

The claim is also made that it should not be used, that is, that it is a misnomer. If it's current in English, we follow that usage. That some call it a misnomer is irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, is Court of Appeal in England and Wales a better title? It would be better than parenthetical disambiguation as proposed, if it is attested in reliable sources. Andrewa (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappily, as well as being misleading, inaccurate and confusing, that would be inconsistent with the first sentence of the article itself, which explains that the court is, in relation to England and Wales, "Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in England" (emphasis added). Qexigator (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, would Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in England be a good title in your opinion? If so, evidence? Andrewa (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Potential closers might also like to check progress at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lexigator. Andrewa (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Better still, check Andrewa's record for time-wasting abuse of WP procedures, in view of the practical irrelevance of at least some of his interventions on this page, and after noting links at User page, [4] and [5] and inspecting Revision history statistics.[6] AGF restrains us surmising casual malice (i.e., not necessarily with "malice aforethought"). Qexigator (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have concerns as to my behaviour, please raise them on my user talk page, as I have done [7] [8] on yours. Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that improving the article, and Civility, Common sense,Good faith, Sense of humour, are concerns of... Qexigator (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox image

The current version of the infobox stems from 16 October 2017.[9] There are problems with this:

It duplicates the royal coat of arms in the series box.
It has replaced the image of the main entrance to Royal Courts of Justice, the building where the Court has been located from the time the building was opened,[10] while another image showing a sidelong view of the building's east wing facade only has been inserted in the History section.
The infobox caption is: "Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom, as used by both the Judicial Office under and HM Courts and Tribunals Service within the Ministry of Justice (although not necessarily used at court or when handing down judgments)." (italics added) The italicised words do not make sense. The information is too long for the infobox: if the linked image used on court papers is notable, it should be in the article.
The coloured image of the coat of arms is not the image used by HM Courts and Tribunals Service, which is here[11].

To avoid the duplication, we could

1_reinstate the image of the RCJ building entrance as before, and remove the sidelong image now in the History section,
or 2_ use the image as shown at Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, with suitable caption.

Until sufficient support for 2 emerges, it seems that we should let the previous image continue. Further comment is invited, one way or the other, or with some other proposal. Meanwhile, I will go ahead with 1 above. Qexigator (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Appeal

Personally, I think there should be some controversy on the 'Court of Appeal' being dubbed as its own court on Wikipedia, as it has two divisions (criminal and civil) and should have its own separate court/s listed on their own to complete the structure. The foundations of the two divisions are, indeed, the court of appeal, however, the importance and credibility lies in the information and contents. Therefore there should be listed the divisions together, yet named separately, with the courts of each clearly stated below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:31B0:7600:BD81:867F:4D4C:BC84 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two divisions of one court. It's not problematic conceptually. If the COA article were to be expanded significantly, then creating pages specifically for divisions would make sense; this would lighten the load on the COA page as Division-specific info would be found in its own page. It is clear that the current COA article is underdeveloped and generally light on content, so I doubt this will happen any time soon. Perennial Student (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]