Full Court

A Full Court (or "full bench") refers to a court consisting of a greater-than-normal number of judges. Thus, in relation to a court usually presided over by a single judge, a Full Court would comprise a bench of three (or more) judges; for a court which, like many appellate courts, normally comprises three judges, a Full Court of that court would involve a bench of five (or more) judges. The expression originated in England but seems largely to have fallen into disuse there; however it is still used in Scotland [E.g., in the Court of Criminal Appeal.] and in many other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia [See, for example, the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/ Judiciary Act 1903 (Aust.)] section 19 in relation to the High Court of Australia. ] and New Zealand [See the [http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0089/latest/DLM144693.html?search=ts_act_judicature&sr=1 Judicature Act 1908 (NZ)] .] . Although possible, a Full Court typically [Exceptions being where the participation of all the appointed judges is the usual composition for main hearings, as with the High Court of Australia.] does not involve the participation of "all" the existing judges of the court (a practice known, in the United States, as the court sitting "en banc").

The term reflects the practice, before permanent appeal courts were established, of appeals from decisions of trial courts being heard by several judges of the same court (excluding the judge who gave the decision appealed from). Technically, a judgment of a Full Court is at the same level of the judicial hierarchy as the decision appealed from, and under the doctrine of precedent may [Depending on how the doctrine of precedent applies to the particular court.] not bind future courts at that level; however the greater number of judges involved and the fact that it is an appeal may make it almost as persuasive, in practice, as a judgment of the same number of judges in a higher court.

The historical trend to create separate courts of appeal, with permanent rather than "ad hoc" appellate judges, has reduced the need for the use of Full Courts. However they are still sometimes found in cases of great significance where there is either no possibility or no likelihood of a further appeal. [Recent (rare) examples at the level of the House of Lords include the [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/17.html second Pinochet extradition case] and the [http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/71.html challenge to the use of evidence obtained by torture] , in both of which a panel of seven judges sat rather than the usual five.]

References