Star Chamber in Context

• Author: Akhil Sud
• Pages: 75-98

e Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law

ISSN: 2338-7602; E-ISSN: 2338-770X

http://www.ijil.org

© 2018 e Institute for Migrant Rights Press

star ChamBEr in ContExt

Akhil Sud

Yale Law School

Email: akhil.sud@yale.edu

Star Chamber used much discretion, yet not in ways that set it apart from the

rest of the early modern English legal system. e popular label to the contrary

is a myth. is myth has been partly debunked by some historians. In this paper,

I attempt to further debunk it, and in a slightly dierent way. I use the interac-

tion between power and justice as my analytical lens, to reveal broad parallels

between Star Chamber and the common law criminal justice system. I hope

to show that similar goals underlay the law in both realms, and that the two

were therefore not fundamentally dierent. ough only one survived, they were

products of the same age and philosophy. e broader signicance of this paper

lies in the fact that Star Chamber is an excellent case study for larger lessons

about history, norms, and morality. It uses sound historical method by arguing

that the right baseline for evaluating Star Chamber is its context, and not mor-

al sensibilities today. In addition to espousing methodological soundness, this

paper seeks to preserve history’s normative power: if we despise Star Chamber

because it was especially tyrannical, we will conate incongruity with immoral-

ity. We can continue to despise Star Chamber, but we must also acknowledge

its congruity with its context. Once we do that, we will be more conscious of a

crucial principle: just because something is normal doesn’t mean it’s moral.

Keywords: Common Law, Law and History, Legal System, Comparative Law, Judicial

System.

V Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law 75-98 (January 2018)

76

Sud

INTRODUCTION

Star Chamber is steeped in myth. An arguably standard account calls it

an English court of law established by act of Parliament, possibly in the

eenth century, operating outside the common law, authorized by the

monarch’s prerogative and run by the monarch’s councilors. But neither

its origin nor its nature is certain. Historians believe it was older than

the misleadingly named Star Chamber Act of 1487.1 Some also believe

it was less a court of law, and more an all-purpose deliberative body.2

But the label that sticks the most is the most tarnishing one—that Star

Chamber worked nefariously, in complete disregard for the common

law, ignoring its defenses and processes. Star Chamber “stripped the

delinquent of his constitutional defense . . . and le him open to the ca-

pricious and tyrannical will and humor of arbitrary judges.”3 e Long

Parliament abolished the court in 1641 for exceeding its jurisdiction,

for its arbitrary proceedings, and for its cruel and excessive punish-

ments.4 And now Star Chamber is “one of modern history’s few really

dirty words;”5 “a synonym for secrecy, severity, and the wresting of jus-

tice.”6

Some historians have somewhat dispelled even this myth—mostly

by arguing that Star Chamber was not all that nefarious. Star Chamber

observed process to a fault;7 it punished contempt of common law

courts and abuse of procedure;8 it granted counsel and opportunities

for testimony which even the common law didn’t;9 the monarch’s

1. Infra note 88.

2. A. F. Pollard, Council, Star Chamber, and Privy Council under the Tudors: II.

e Star Chamber, 37 E. H. R. 516, 518-520 (1922).

3. Daniel L. V. Zande, Coercive Power and the Demise of the Star Chamber, 50 A.

J. L H. 326, 326 (2010).

4. Id. at 330.

5. omas G. Barnes, Star Chamber Mythology, 5 A. J. L H. 1, 1 (1961).

6. Edward P. Cheyney, e Court of Star Chamber, 18 A. H. R. 727, 727

(1913).

7. Barnes, supra note 5, at 5.

8. Barnes, supra note 5, at 7.

9. Barnes, supra note 5, at 9.