Hubbry Logo
AssizesAssizesMain
Open search
Assizes
Community hub
Assizes
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Assizes
Assizes
Assizes
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Former Assizes, Northgate Street, Devizes
Devizes Assize Court, Northgate Street, Devizes, Wiltshire, England

The assizes (/əˈsaɪzɪz/), or courts of assize, were periodic courts held around England and Wales until 1972, when together with the quarter sessions they were abolished by the Courts Act 1971 and replaced by a single permanent Crown Court. The assizes exercised both civil and criminal jurisdiction, though most of their work was on the criminal side.[1] The assizes heard the most serious cases, most notably those subject to capital punishment or, later, life imprisonment. Other serious cases were dealt with by the quarter sessions (local county courts held four times per year), while the more minor offences were dealt with summarily by justices of the peace in petty sessions (also known as magistrates' courts).

The word assize refers to the sittings or sessions (Old French assises) of the judges, known as "justices of assize", who were judges who travelled across the seven circuits of England and Wales on commissions of "oyer and terminer", setting up court and summoning juries at the various assize towns.

Etymology

[edit]

The courts of assize were the English equivalent of the still-existing French Cours d'assise. The term is derived by Middle English assise < Old French assise ("session, legal action" – past participle of asseoir, "to seat") < Vulgar Latin *assedēre < Latin assidēre ("to sit beside, aside, elsewhere") < ad + sedēre ("to sit").[2]

History

[edit]
Diagram of common-law courts in England and Wales before the Judicature Acts
Diagram of common-law courts in England and Wales before the Judicature Acts

By the Assize of Clarendon of 1166 King Henry II established trial by jury by a grand assize of twelve knights in land disputes, and itinerant justices to set up county courts.[3] Before Magna Carta was passed (enacted) in 1215, writs of assize had to be tried at Westminster or await trial at the septennial circuit of justices in eyre. The great charter provided for land disputes to be tried by annual assizes at more convenient places. This work soon expanded, becoming five commissions. In 1293, a statute was enacted which formally defined four assize circuits.[4]

For centuries, many justices of the Court of King's Bench, those of the Court of Common Pleas, and barons of the Exchequer of Pleas in some seasons of the year travelled around the country contributing to five commissions: their civil commissions were those of assize and of nisi prius; their criminal law commissions were those of the peace, of oyer and terminer and for jail delivery (meaning clearing out of prisoners).

The second commission heard cases which plaintiffs sought to receive priority. From an Act passed in the reign of King Edward I plaintiffs (claimants) could file pleadings at Westminster for the court to issue a writ to summon a jury to Westminster to appoint a time and place for hearing the causes there, stating the county of origin. Such writs used the words and form of nisi prius (Latin: "unless before"). The writ called the parties to Westminster (on a longstop date) unless the king's justices had assembled a court in the county to deal with the case beforehand.

The commission of oyer and terminer, was a general commission to hear and decide cases. The commission of jail delivery required the justices to try all prisoners not yet tried by judges held in the jails.

Historically, all justices who visited Cornwall were also permanent members of the Prince's Council, which oversees the Duchy and advises the Duke.[5] Before the creation of the Duchy, the Earls of Cornwall had control over the assizes. In the 13th century Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall, feted as 'King of the Romans', moved the assizes to the new administrative palace complex in Lostwithiel but they later returned to Launceston.[6]

19th and 20th centuries

[edit]

Few substantial changes occurred until the 19th century. From 1832 onwards, Wales and the palatine county of Chester, served by the Court of Great Sessions, were merged into the circuit system. The commissions for (the City of) London and Middlesex were replaced with a Central Criminal Court, serving London's broadened metropolis, and county courts were established widely to hear many civil cases which had taken the writ-action form of nisi prius.

The Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, which merged judges of equity and common law competing systems into the Supreme Court of Judicature, transferred the jurisdiction of the commissions of assize (e.g. the possessory assizes that heard actions relating to the dispossession of land) to the High Court of Justice, and established district registries of the High Court across the country, leaving a minimal civil jurisdiction to the (travelling) assizes.

In 1956, crown courts were set up in Liverpool and Manchester, replacing the assizes and quarter sessions. This was extended nationwide in 1972 following the recommendations of a royal commission.

Circuits

[edit]
For Wales and Cheshire, see Court of Great Sessions in Wales.
For London and Middlesex, see Old Bailey.

From 1293, sets of judges toured across four circuits; from 1328, six circuits which changed in content until an extra was added in 1876.[7] As at 1831 they were:

Yorkshire was for a time removed from the Northern Circuit and placed on the Midland Circuit.

The North-eastern Circuit was formed in 1876 and contained Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland.[9] By 1960 these seven circuits saw no longer a Home nor a Norfolk Circuit, instead a South-eastern Circuit and a Wales and Chester Circuit.[10] In 1972, the Midland Circuit and the Oxford Circuit were combined and became the Midland and Oxford Circuit.[11][12]

Each had its own bar and mess (also called a circuit mess or bar mess). The mess was a society of those jurists practising on the circuit. The bar was its barristers' subset.[13][14][15][16][17]

Circuits continue today with similar functions as professional associations for barristers and administrative divisions for judges.[18]

Assize records

[edit]

The National Archives holds most of the surviving historical records of the assizes.[19]

See also

[edit]
  • Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Assize" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 2 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Cockburn, J S. A History of English Assizes, 1558–1714. Cambridge University Press. 1972.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Assizes

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The assizes, or courts of assize, were itinerant royal courts that convened periodically, typically twice a year, in the principal towns of each county in to try serious criminal offenses and certain civil disputes under commissions issued by . Presided over by judges from the central courts who traveled designated circuits, these sessions served as the primary mechanism for administering high justice at the local level, bridging royal authority with county governance from the medieval period until their abolition. Originating in the legal reforms of Henry II in the late , such as the in 1166 which established procedures for presentments leading to jury trials, the assizes evolved from early eyre systems into a structured framework for trials by the 13th century. By the Tudor and Stuart eras, they had become central to English , handling capital cases and maintaining order through public proceedings that often culminated in executions or transportation. The system's efficiency relied on local juries and presentments from quarter sessions, ensuring empirical assessment of evidence over ordeal or combat. The assizes persisted with minor reforms until the 20th century, when rising caseloads and delays prompted their replacement by the permanent system under the Courts Act 1971, effective 1972, which consolidated jurisdiction to streamline proceedings and reduce circuit travel. This transition marked the end of a millennium-old tradition of mobile royal justice, reflecting causal shifts toward centralized, professionalized courts amid modern administrative demands.

Origins and Etymology

Linguistic Roots

The term "assizes" entered as "assise," denoting a session or ordinance, borrowed from "assise" or the plural "assises," which functioned as the feminine past participle of the verb "asseoir," meaning "to seat" or "to cause to sit." This form traces to "*assedēre," an alteration of "assidēre," a of the preposition "ad-" (indicating direction toward) and the verb "sedēre" (to sit), literally connoting "to sit down to" or "to sit beside" as in attending or assisting. In the legal domain of medieval , the word evolved to specifically describe periodic judicial or assemblies where royal justices convened to administer , reflecting the core idea of a formal "sitting" for and , akin to early recognitions or inquests. By the 13th century, "assizes" had solidified in English legal usage to refer to these county-level court sessions, distinguishing them from fixed central tribunals, with the plural form emphasizing recurring or multiple ordinances issued therein.

Medieval Foundations

The foundations of the English assize system emerged in the mid-12th century under King Henry II, as part of broader efforts to reassert royal control over local justice following the disorder of Stephen's reign (1135–1154), during which feudal lords had expanded their judicial autonomy. Henry II dispatched itinerant royal justices—known as justices in eyre—to circuits across the realm, enabling centralized enforcement of crown law and reducing reliance on seignorial courts or archaic methods like . These circuits, initially but systematized into six fixed paths by the century's end, formed the operational backbone of the assizes, with justices holding sessions to hear both civil possessory actions and criminal presentments. A was the , promulgated in January 1166 at , which instituted mandatory presentments of crimes by local juries of twelve lawful men from each hundred and four from each township, sworn to identify suspects for offenses including murder, theft, and arson. These inquests, conducted before royal justices, required communities under to disclose hidden criminals, with indicted suspects facing by ordeal or, if clerical, referral to ecclesiastical courts; failure to prosecute locals risked amercements. This reform curtailed baronial judicial independence and laid groundwork for the grand jury, prioritizing empirical accusation over or . The Assize of Northampton, enacted in January 1176 amid councils following the 1173–1174 Great Revolt, reinforced Clarendon's framework by doubling penalties for many crimes, mandating oaths of from freeholders to , and expanding inquiries into and offenses. Complementing criminal procedures, Henry II's civil innovations included writs of novel disseisin (c. 1166) and mort d'ancestor (c. 1176), which summoned possessory land disputes to assize sessions for jury verdicts on recent wrongful dispossession or heir rights, bypassing feudal homage delays. These "petty assizes" accelerated royal oversight of tenurial stability, fostering a tradition verifiable through registries and rolls from the period. By I's reign (1189–1199), assize courts had evolved into periodic fixtures, blending ordinance enforcement with to underpin Angevin governance.

Operational Framework

Jurisdiction and Case Types

The assize courts in exercised both criminal and civil , with the majority of proceedings focused on criminal matters involving serious offenses triable by . Criminal derived from royal commissions such as (to hear and determine crown pleas) and gaol delivery (to try prisoners held in county gaols), enabling judges to address felonies and treasons that local courts like quarter sessions could not handle due to their gravity. This authority extended from the late medieval period, formalized by the 13th century, through to the courts' abolition under the Courts Act 1971, during which assizes served as the central mechanism for provincial justice on serious crimes. Criminal cases at assizes primarily involved indictable offenses punishable by , transportation, or , including , wounding or maiming, of goods valued over one (constituting grand larceny), , highway , , , coining or clipping of money, and . Defendants charged with or were mandatorily tried at assizes rather than inferior courts, with grand juries indicting based on bills of from coroners' inquests or private prosecutors. Lesser offenses, such as petty (goods under 12 pence, often deliberately undervalued to evade ) or misdemeanors, were generally reserved for quarter sessions, though assizes occasionally heard them if escalated. Civil , exercised via the nisi prius side of the , covered jury-triable disputes not resolvable at local levels, such as actions for recovery, , , trespass to person or property, and land disputes including or disputes over possession. Originating from medieval assize writs for possessory actions (e.g., novel disseisin or d'ancestor), this evolved by the into broader common-law civil suits, with records from 1656 onward documenting judgments and orders enforceable nationwide. Unlike criminal proceedings, civil assizes emphasized monetary or restitution, though they shared the biannual circuit schedule with criminal sessions.

Circuit System

The circuit system of the assizes dispatched commissions of judges from the central royal courts in Westminster to traverse predefined geographical circuits across , administering justice in provincial towns. Originating in the medieval era, this mechanism extended the reach of centralized authority by enabling itinerant justices to preside over serious criminal trials and select civil actions without necessitating travel to . England was organized into six judicial circuits, a division established by the , while maintained a parallel system of four circuits under the Courts of Great Sessions until their abolition in 1830, after which Welsh counties were integrated into the English assize framework. Judges, drawn from the superior courts such as King's Bench, rode these circuits in groups, typically numbering around 12 prominent justices in total who covered the national workload. Sessions occurred twice annually per circuit: the assizes in or and the summer assizes in or , with occasional additional winter sittings for urgent matters or gaol deliveries. Each circuit encompassed multiple counties, with courts convening in the assize town of each, where local juries were empaneled and cases from intervening quarter sessions were committed. This biannual rhythm balanced expedition with the logistical demands of travel by , coach, and later rail, ensuring timely resolution of indictable offenses amid rising 19th-century caseloads. The system's efficiency relied on royal commissions specifying the judges' powers, including oyer and terminer for criminal matters and nisi prius for civil disputes, accompanied by sheriffs who secured venues and prisoners. Until reforms in 1876 expanded circuits to seven to mitigate delays, the original six-circuit model endured, adapting incrementally to demographic shifts and improved transport while preserving the itinerant tradition central to English administration.

Judicial Procedures

The judicial procedures in assize courts centered on the trial of serious criminal offenses, including felonies such as murder, robbery, and rape, under commissions of oyer and terminer (to hear and determine cases) and gaol delivery (to clear gaols of prisoners). These commissions, issued to itinerant judges from the central courts, empowered them to process all suspects—whether bailed or imprisoned—within their circuit, a practice established by at least 1330 and persisting through the system's operation from the 12th century until abolition in 1972. Proceedings began with indictments, formal written accusations detailing the defendant's name, occupation, residence, offense date, and involved parties, prepared by local justices of the peace or coroners and forwarded to the assizes. A , composed of local gentlemen summoned via jury panels, reviewed these indictments at the assize session to determine ; approval resulted in a "true bill" for trial, while rejection yielded an "ignoramus" or "no bill," dismissing about 10-20% of cases in analogous proceedings. Pre-trial depositions from witnesses, often including exhibits like weapons or documents, supported capital cases and were examined by the judge. Following indictment approval, the defendant faced arraignment, where they entered a plea—typically "not guilty" until the 19th century, when guilty pleas rose to nearly 50% by 1913 amid emerging plea bargaining. Trials then proceeded before a petit jury of 12 locals, with evidence presented orally: the victim or prosecutor (often without formal counsel until the mid-18th century) called witnesses, the defendant could respond unsworn until 1898, and the judge summed up the law and facts, exercising broad discretion in admitting testimony under lax evidentiary rules that prioritized speed over rigor. Sessions were brisk, often handling multiple cases per judge during the two annual visits (Lent and summer until the 19th-century expansion to four), with records in Latin until 1733 and English thereafter. The deliberated privately and delivered a of guilty, not guilty, or no true bill; upon , the imposed sentence immediately, frequently for felonies until reforms like the 1823 Judgement of Death Act introduced mitigation options such as transportation or . Outcomes were annotated on indictments or logged in crown and gaol books, reflecting high judicial authority with limited appeals until later centuries. While primarily criminal, assizes also resolved civil issues via nisi prius process, transferring fact-finding from Westminster to local juries under supervision.

Historical Role and Impact

Achievements in Maintaining Order

The English assizes achieved significant success in maintaining order by centralizing the administration of and ensuring the prompt trial of serious offenses. Established as periodic sessions where royal judges on circuit handled felonies, the system delivered the king's to localities, countering fragmented feudal that often permitted private settlements or delays. By 1275, under I's statutes, assizes formalized procedures for gaol delivery, clearing prisons of untried felons twice yearly and imposing swift punishments, which deterred potential offenders through visible enforcement. Reforms initiated by the in 1166 exemplified early efficacy, mandating sworn presentments by local juries to identify criminals for royal scrutiny, thereby increasing detection rates and curbing baronial interference in judicial matters. This mechanism shifted authority from local lords to crown justices, reducing feuds and arbitrary rulings that undermined social stability during the post-Anarchy era. Historical records indicate that such inquisitorial processes led to higher prosecution volumes, fostering a of impartial royal oversight that bolstered public compliance with law. Over subsequent centuries, assizes reinforced order via deterrence, as evidenced by their role in the "," where convictions for property crimes often resulted in capital sentences executed publicly to instill fear of consequences. Assize records from the 16th to 18th centuries document consistent handling of indictments for violent and theft-related felonies, contributing to relatively stable homicide rates compared to , where decentralized systems prevailed. This integration of local information from justices of the peace with central maintained equilibrium between provincial and national uniformity, preventing widespread disorder.

Criticisms and Notable Controversies

The periodic nature of assize courts, convening only twice annually in most circuits, resulted in significant delays for defendants awaiting trial, often enduring months or even half a year in local jails under uncertain conditions before cases could be heard. This backlog exacerbated and strained resources, as judges were compelled to expedite proceedings to clear dockets before advancing to the next venue, potentially compromising thorough deliberation. Such inefficiencies were formally critiqued in the 1966-1969 on Assizes and Quarter Sessions (Beeching Report), which highlighted the system's outdated structure amid rising caseloads and recommended abolition to streamline justice delivery. Variations in sentencing across circuits arose from the discretion afforded to individual judges traveling the assize routes, leading to disparate outcomes for comparable offenses; for instance, capital convictions for crimes could differ markedly depending on the presiding justice's or local influences on juries drawn from the community. Critics argued this undermined uniformity in application, fostering perceptions of , particularly as the system handled over 200 capital felonies by the , with transportation or execution rates fluctuating by venue. A prominent controversy unfolded during the Bloody Assizes of 1685, following the , where King's Bench judge George Jeffreys presided over trials in western counties, convicting approximately 1,300 rebels of treason. Over 300 were executed—often by hanging, drawing, and quartering—and around 800 transported to the as slaves, with proceedings criticized even by some royalists for their ferocity, including coerced guilty pleas and minimal evidence requirements. Jeffreys' methods, involving public spectacles of brutality to deter dissent, drew condemnation for excessiveness, contributing to his later impeachment after the , though defenders attributed the severity to rebellion's threat to . This episode exemplified broader concerns over assize courts' capacity for politicized justice under monarchical pressure.

Decline, Abolition, and Legacy

Factors Leading to Reform

The assize system's periodic nature, with judges traveling fixed circuits typically twice annually, created significant delays in hearing serious criminal cases, exacerbating backlogs amid post-World War II rises in reported crime; by 1968, over 30,000 individuals were held on remand awaiting trial, highlighting the strain on resources. The inflexibility of assize schedules prevented rapid adjustments to fluctuating workloads, limiting judge availability and contributing to inefficiencies in case management. These operational shortcomings were systematically examined by the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions (1966–1969), chaired by Lord Beeching, which identified the itinerant model's outdated structure as a primary barrier to modern judicial demands, including the need for centralized administration to optimize judge deployment across . The Commission's 1969 report (Cmnd. 4153) recommended abolishing assizes and quarter sessions in favor of permanent courts to enhance efficiency, reduce costs associated with judicial travel and accommodations, and accommodate increasing caseloads driven by population growth and legal reforms expanding prosecutable offenses. Broader pressures for reform stemmed from the evolving legal landscape, including the 1960s expansion of and procedural changes that increased trial volumes, rendering the decentralized assize framework incompatible with demands for timely justice; these factors culminated in the Courts Act 1971, which implemented the Commission's core proposals by establishing the unified system effective from 1972.

Abolition and Replacement

The assizes were abolished in by the Courts Act 1971, which received on 26 July 1971 and took effect for the abolition of assize courts on 1 January 1972. This legislation merged the criminal jurisdictions of the assizes and quarter sessions into a unified system, addressing inefficiencies in the periodic circuit-based model that had struggled with rising caseloads and inconsistent scheduling. The operates as a permanent national court with fixed locations across , staffed by judges, circuit judges, and recorders, enabling year-round sittings rather than the biannual or quarterly assize sessions. Under the new framework, the Crown Court assumed all indictable criminal cases previously handled by assizes, including serious offenses like and , while summary offenses remained with magistrates' courts. Civil jurisdiction from the assizes transferred to district registries of the , often located in former assize towns, streamlining access without the need for traveling judges. This replacement centralized administration under the Lord Chancellor's Department (now the ), reducing duplication and improving resource allocation across a network of over 90 court centers. The transition preserved but shifted from a decentralized, itinerant tradition dating to the toward a more efficient, modern structure suited to post-war increases in litigation volume.

Archival Records and Scholarly Value

Records of the Assizes primarily consist of criminal trial documents such as indictments, gaol calendars listing prisoners' details including ages, occupations, and offenses, witness depositions, plea rolls, and order books, with civil records including nisi prius files for and cases. These materials cover from 1559 to 1971 and from 1831 to 1971, though survival rates vary, with earlier records (pre-18th century) less complete due to destruction by assize clerks facing space constraints or incidental losses. The bulk of surviving Assizes records are held at The in , , under series like ASSI (Assize records) and CHES (for Chester circuit), with supplementary holdings in local repositories such as the London Metropolitan Archives for cases or county archives for borough-specific files. Digitization efforts have made select gaol calendars and indictments accessible online via platforms like The ' Discovery catalog, facilitating broader research access. Assizes records hold substantial scholarly value as primary sources for reconstructing patterns of , including , , and offenses, revealing temporal and regional variations in criminality tied to economic and social factors. Historians utilize gaol calendars and depositions to analyze offender demographics, prosecution rates, and conviction outcomes, providing empirical data on the efficacy of itinerant in maintaining public order across circuits. These documents also illuminate procedural evolution, such as the shift toward evidence-based trials, and administrative roles of assize judges in local , offering causal insights into the interplay between central and provincial . Projects like the Isle of Ely Assizes transcription have extracted details on offenses from to , enriching understandings of rural criminality and community responses. The assize courts, operational from the until their abolition in 1971 under the Courts Act 1971, established a foundational model for circuit-based judicial administration in , whereby professional judges from central courts traveled to regional centers to adjudicate serious criminal matters. This itinerant system ensured local access to superior justice without requiring litigants to travel to , a principle echoed in the modern structure, which maintains six circuits and permanent hearing centers often sited in former assize towns like and . The replacement centralized operations but preserved the assizes' emphasis on efficient, regionally distributed handling of indictable offenses such as and . Procedurally, the assizes reinforced the use of grand and petit juries for serious cases, drawing from 12th-century reforms like the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, which mandated presentments by local juries to initiate prosecutions—a precursor to contemporary grand jury functions in common law jurisdictions and the English committal process. This jury-centric approach for capital and life-imprisonment-eligible trials influenced the enduring reliance on lay participation in Crown Court proceedings, where 12-person juries deliberate verdicts under professional judicial oversight. Beyond , the assize model shaped colonial legal frameworks in countries; for instance, early American courts adopted similar periodic sessions for superior , as seen in New York's Court of Assizes established in the for appeals and grave crimes. In Ireland, partial retention of English elements post-1536 integration extended assize-like circuits until the 19th century, embedding localized serious-case adjudication in post-independence systems. These adaptations underscore the assizes' role in promoting uniform royal justice over fragmented local customs, a causal mechanism that prioritized empirical evidentiary standards and centralized oversight in successor systems.

References

  1. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-trials-assize-courts-1559-1971/
  2. https://lawlibguides.usc.edu/c.php?g=777451&p=5590184
  3. https://www.agecrofthall.org/single-post/traveling-law-the-court-of-assize
  4. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13841&context=journal_articles
  5. https://www.ourcriminalancestors.org/assizes/
  6. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5723&context=faculty_scholarship
  7. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Assize_Court_Records
  8. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/criminal-court-cases-an-overview/
  9. https://www.etymonline.com/word/assize
  10. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assize
  11. https://uncg.edu/~rebarton/assize-clarendon.htm
  12. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_law_01.shtml
  13. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/laworder/court/overview/assizes/
  14. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/assizecl.asp
  15. https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/ELH/mats/Mats4A_B.pdf
  16. https://culibraries.creighton.edu/rarebook/common_law
  17. https://historyoflaw.co.uk/petty-assizes-development-of-jury-system/
  18. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/civil-court-cases-assize-courts-1656-1971/
  19. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/history-of-the-judiciary-in-england-and-wales/history-of-the-judiciary/
  20. https://capitalpunishmentuk.org/the-criminal-court-system-in-england-and-wales-until-1971/
  21. https://ourcriminalancestors.org/assizes/
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-english-assizes-15581714/criminal-proceedings/2BBC67B3E2287D1ECB8DA99F057F002A
  23. https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/about/trial-procedures
  24. http://uncg.edu/~rebarton/assize-clarendon.htm
  25. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2197&context=mlr
  26. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Langbein_Albions_Fatal_Flaws.pdf
  27. https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/manuel-eisner-historical-trends-in-violence.pdf
  28. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1970-05-07/debates/f4a5b2c3-f99f-4d8d-a421-014871c8d5a0/AssizesAndQuarterSessions%28Report%29
  29. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/laworder/court/overview/moderncourtsystem/
  30. https://www.britannica.com/event/Bloody-Assizes
  31. https://www.bbc.co.uk/somerset/content/articles/2009/03/17/judgejeffreys_feature.shtml
  32. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1970/may/07/assizes-and-quarter-sessions-report
  33. https://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/chpt6.pdf
  34. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/lcj-michael-ryle-memorial-lecture-20170616.pdf
  35. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/23
  36. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/23/schedule/8/paragraph/57
  37. https://lancasterjudgeslodgings.org.uk/50th-anniversary-of-the-courts-act-1971/
  38. https://www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk/themes/subjects/crime/quarter_sessions_and_assize_records/
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/825677
  40. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/ely-assizes-revelations
  41. https://history.nycourts.gov/case/court-assizes/
  42. https://www.britannica.com/topic/assize
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.