The Dynamics of the English Criminal Justice System

The English Criminal Justice System

Recent studies have suggested that for every five people, at least one was affected by crime in the last year. To ensure an orderly, just and efficient experience for the victims, it is essential to have a well-functioning criminal justice system. While justice is a core value of Britain, it is also one of its magnificent exports. Because of the strengths of the English law, is justice system has come to be respected globally. The English criminal justice system is responsible for investigating, trying, punishing and rehabilitating crime suspects or convicted criminals. Statistics show that nearly 1.7 million cases or offences are handled in courts annually.

The English criminal justice system is mainly constituted of the following key parts: law enforcement (police forces); the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS); courts; victims; witnesses; victims and witness services; judiciary, attorneys and detention and probation agencies. The defendants are key players in the system. Law enforcement agencies (the police) are a person’s (defendant’s) first point of contact with the criminal justice system. The police in England will exercise their discretion to make the initial decision of moving against a defendant. The police investigate a suspected commission of a crime and effect an arrest. In certain cases the police may be needed to consult with the Director of Public Prosecutions or police solicitors, but they make the initial decision to take suspects to court. Once arrested, a suspected criminal will then be brought before a court. In courts, the existing disputes are settled and justice administered. In the criminal justice system, the court constitutes the presiding judge, the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer- defense attorney.

Investigation and adjudication of criminal cases usually take either of these two legal traditions; adversarial system or inquisitorial system. Countries governed by common law such as England and America have largely adopted the adversarial system, whereas inquisitorial system is more popular among civil law countries- mostly European.

The Adversarial System

In the criminal justice system, we also find the adversarial system (or adversary system). It is through this two-part system that criminal courts operate to determine whether the person accused of a crime is guilty or not (Moohr, 2004, p 173). This system views courtrooms as battle grounds or playing fields and legal disputes or controversies as battles to be fought and won using all means and resources, albeit in the confines of the law. In the adversarial system, two disputing sides both give their accounts of events before an unbiased and objective third party- a judge, a bench of judges and sometimes a jury in a court of law. The impartial third party is usually uninterested in the case and acts as a referee who ensures fairness to an accused person and that the criminal law procedures are followed (Moohr, 2004, p. 185). The parties in this case will be the defendant on one side, and the prosecution on the other. The adversary system holds that each side is responsible for developing and presenting evidence and proofs as a way of uncovering information that would be crucial in enabling the court- judge or jury- to determine the case. Each party develops and submits its arguments, may gather and present evidence, call witnesses and ask them questions in a bid to prove their case. Very strict procedure and rules of evidence govern this system and allow equal chances to both parties to argue their cases. To settle the case, the court will rule in favor of the party that convinces it that their case is the correct one by giving the most compelling and sound arguments in accordance with the law applicable to the facts of the case before the court. Justice is considered to have been served when the adversary with most compelling argument gets a ruling in their favor.

The Inquisitorial System

In this system, very thorough pre-trial investigations and interrogations are conducted so as to prevent the bringing of an innocent person to trial. It is more like an inquiry of the facts unlike the adversary one which is like competition between defense and prosecution (O'Reilly, 1994, p. 402). The judge overseeing the inquisitorial system process (inquiry) has more power compared to an adversarial system judge who merely arbitrates between the defendant’s and prosecution’s claims. In this system, the judge is empowered to investigate facts and question witnesses before they render a ruling. Whereas the adversary system favors juries in courts, the inquisitorial system does not and it minimally involves the disputing parties in its fact-finding. This system lays an emphasis on the search for truth, while the adversary system believes in truth being ancillary to reaching the fairest resolution to a controversy.

The Adversarial System versus the Inquisitorial System

Given its truth and fact-finding process, the inquisitorial system has been suggested to be more equitable and just than the adversarial legal system whose proponents, however, claim that the truth is most likely to come out once both disputants vigorously present their accounts (Parisi, 2002, p. 198).

Critics of the inquisitorial system suggest that it is susceptible to deficiencies such as abuse of office and corruption, while the adversary system critics say it is imperfect and could be abused and manipulated. Because of the many and sometimes conflicting roles (evidence gathering, fact finding, interrogation and decision making) played by judge an inquisitorial system judge, they may prejudge a case in a bid to do away with it (Van Koppen and Penrod, 2003). Adversary system has been suggested to be more sensitive to the rights of a person than the inquisitorial system. Inquisitorial judges are viewed as government bureaucrats and adversarial judges as a part of an independent judicial system, making inquisitorial judges identify with the government more than the disputants, as the adversarial one does the opposite. The inquisitorial legal system critics argue that the adversary system may be better placed to check on government excesses compared to the inquisitorial system which offers little to no checks and is prone to bribery, corruption and abuse of power (Van Koppen and Penrod, 2003). Adversary system supporters maintain that the system best brings out truth as its notion of advocacy by each side finally lays bare to the judge or jury the facts for a just solution, while protecting each person’s rights.

Burden of Proof

The term is derived from the phrase ‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’ which is a Latin maxim that when loosely translated means the person who lays charge bears the necessity of proving it.

Also termed as the golden thread principle by English criminal law, burden of proof is a principle that generally states that it is solely upon the party that brings a case to prove the facts of the underlying issue. They must produce relevant evidence in an effort to prove their case so as to ultimately win the case by discharging their burden of proof (Jeffries and Stephan, 1979). In England it is upon the prosecution, by virtue of its bringing the case to court, to prove beyond reasonable doubt (McBaine, 1944, p. 242) that the accused committed the offence they are accused of, and is therefore guilty. Being that the prosecution brought the case to court, and given its resources to prove the facts, it therefore has the burden of proof (Kaplan, Weisberg and Binder, 2014). In civil cases, the plaintiffs typically have this burden, and may prove their claims through a preponderance of the evidence (Shapiro, 1991). Burden of proof also encompasses burdens of production (evidential burden) and persuasion (Starkie, 1842). Burden of production outlines that one party is presumed right, and it is upon the other party (on whom the burden of proof is) to persuasively establish truths and facts of the issue/ dispute through evidence (Froeb and Kobayashi, 2001). After meeting the burden of production, a litigant is faced with the burden of persuasion whereby he has to provide sufficient evidence to convince the judge or jury that their side is right. Burden of persuasion (also commonly known as standards of proof) also varies depending on the type of dispute and may be higher or lower. The burdens of production and persuasion borne by the various parties in each phase of trial may be of varying standards. Burden of persuasion are of different standards: preponderance of evidence (a proposition is proved if it’s more likely to be true than untrue), some credible evidence, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, clear and convincing evidence, and proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

Along with the burden and standard of proof comes presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence is a legal human right and it means one is considered to be innocent until they are proved to be not. Following this presumption, it is, therefore, upon the prosecutors to produce enough evidence (Jeffries and Stephan, 1979, p.1350) to a judge or jury to prove without any doubt that the accused committed the crime. Under English common law, as with many civil law systems, the accused person in any criminal case will be presumed innocent until and unless the prosecution proves otherwise through sufficient evidence (Lewis, 2006, p. 156). For a civil case, a person will be presumed correct until the plaintiff proves otherwise through some evidence, thereby switching to the defendant the burden of proof.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to The Doctrine of Separation of Powers in the UK.

REFERENCES

Blackstone, W., 1830. Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol. 2). Collins & Hannay.

Froeb, L.M. and Kobayashi, B.H., 2001. Evidence production in adversarial vs. inquisitorial regimes.

Economics Letters, 70(2), pp.267-272.

Jeffries, J.C. and Stephan, P.B., 1979. Defenses, presumptions, and burden of proof in the criminal law.

The Yale Law Journal, 88(7), pp.1325-1407.

Kaplan, J., Weisberg, R. and Binder, G., 2014. Criminal law: Cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law &

Lewis, C., 2006. The prosecution service function within the English criminal justice system. In Coping with overloaded criminal justice systems (pp. 151-184). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

McBaine, J.P., 1944. Burden of proof: Degrees of belief. Calif. L. Rev., 32, p.242.

Moohr, G.S., 2004. Prosecutorial power in an adversarial system: Lessons from current white collar cases and the inquisitorial model. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 8(1), pp.165-220.

O'Reilly, G.W., 1994. England limits the right to silence and moves towards an inquisitorial system of justice. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 85, p.402.

Parisi, F., 2002. Rent-seeking through litigation: adversarial and inquisitorial systems compared. International Review of Law and Economics, 22(2), pp.193-216.

Shapiro, B.J., 1991. " Beyond reasonable doubt" and" probable cause": Historical perspectives on the Anglo-American law of evidence. Univ of California Press.

Starkie, T., 1842. A Practical Treatise of the Law of Evidence: And Digest of Proofs in Civil and Criminal Proceedings (Vol. 2, No. 2). T. & JW Johnson.

Van Koppen, P.J. and Penrod, S.D., 2003. Adversarial or Inquisitorial. In Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice (pp. 1-19). Springer, Boston, MA.

Williams, G.L., 1958. The Proof of guilt: a study of the English criminal trial/by Glanville Williams. London: Stevens.