Talk:Court of Appeal (England and Wales)

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ranking of courts 

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

message: 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://en.wikipedia.org/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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Many thanks for your speedy and helpful reply. Norvo (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! Let me know if you have any further questions :). Ironholds (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When were regular procedures for criminal appeals established? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Procedure for Appeal 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/section/53-2
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69TygpIEa?url=http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-magistrates-and-tribunal-judges/list-of-members-of-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/judges-magistrates-and-tribunal-judges/list-of-members-of-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ====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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Use in reliable sources

message: The current version of the infobox stems from 16 October 2017. 
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, 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.
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)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Court of Appeal