Criminal Trial And The Judicial System Of England And Wales

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

Justice is the concept of moral rightness that is based on equality, access and fairness. This means that the law is applied equally, understood by all people and does not have a particularly harsh effect on an individual. In Australia, the adversary system is used as a means to achieve justice by proving the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the crime. The criminal trial process has many features which aim to fulfill the requirements of achieving justice. These elements, though considers equality, fairness and access, are flawed in practice. Flaws such as the handling of evidence, jurors not understanding instructions, inadequate funds for legal

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

The evidence collected in an investigation helps make or break a case. Although sometimes the evidence is not physical it can still be powerful. Graat v. The Queen, [1982] 2 SCR 819, 1982 CanLII (SCC) is a case where the crown used opinion evidence in order to win their case. Opinion evidence is hard to make admissible in court because of the exceptions that arise from it. If the witness is an expert in the matter he/she does not need to have seen the event to give his/her opinion and may use the terms “I think or I believe” to be described as opinion evidence. (Bartley, 2016) The observations made, by the witnesses involved, influence their opinions. Their knowledge on the matter, although not experts also influenced their opinions.

As recent high-profile criminal trials make clear, the evidence available at the trial can rarely put to rest all doubt as to the guilt or innocence (Tyler, T.). The uncertainly about the truth makes it more difficult to achieve justice in a psychologically satisfactory manner (Tyler, T.).

When watching crime shows such as Law and Order, individuals are given insight into how criminal court trials work. However, there are specific details that these shows usually skip because there boring, but these proceedings tend to be complicated. There are three branches of government that include: legislative, executive and the judicial branches. The Judicial Branch is the sector of government that presides over criminal cases and interprets the law. Within the system there are various courts a person can be tried such as: Criminal Court, Family Court, Civil Court and Supreme Court. This enables individuals the power to check the judicial system by brining their case to different courts. Furthermore, each state has their own regulations that must be followed by the citizens. In New York City Criminal and Supreme court begin to consider children adults when he or she turns sixteen. Therefore,

The values of accountability, effective performance, rights protection, democracy and confidence are primarily promoted by the oversight of the criminal process provided by the courts, independent administrative bodies and the public. There are five principal contexts in which the courts operate to oversee police policy and conduct. These are: judicial review hearings; during the trial process; via criminal prosecution of the police; at an inquest in the coroner's court; and where a civil action is brought.

The Netherlands involve four parties in the sentencing process. The first party is a judge. The judge is responsible for the hearing, information collection, and the determination of

There are two kinds of rules of evidence in common-law jurisdictions. The first, which deals with what kinds of evidence may get to the jury when and in what form, can be understood without much reference to nonjury developments. The second deals with the evaluation by the jury of the evidence, and how it is to decide whether there is sufficient probative evidence to justify a verdict. Such rules are drawn from the culture's general understanding of how we "know" things to be true. This paper deals with this second variety and

Torturing a person like an animal and not being fed, showered, or not see daylight should there be justice? Back then people would be strangled or get shot when they torture a person. Winston had months without seeing any moonlight or daylight, not shaving, and not eating. Also he was torture by putting his worst fear in front of his face, which are the rats. My worst fear are rats as well, and if I was being torture that way then I rather get shot and not suffered. Because getting shot by a weapon we probably will not go through so much pain, screaming, and crying. I will take a bullet rather than anything else because is less torturing. Being tortured for many days or months there should be freedom, and let the induvial do whatever it takes to keeps him or her happy.

In chapter one of this text, it discusses the development and history of the law of criminal evidence. The majority of the rules in evidence were created in the courts of England. Today, persons charged with criminal offenses are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Defendants today can admit or be in denial from a charge, and if the charge is in fact denied, then the government must come forward with substantial, reliable, and valid information showing this person is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the rules and regulations now were not always present. They progressed maturely over the course of history, many were embedded into what is known as common law, and a lot them were created as a piece of the Constitution on the

Findings of fact during a bench trial or motion hearing provide substantial occasions for judicial discretion.

How or why some scientific evidence or expert witnesses are allowed to be presented in court and some are not can be rather confusing. However, there is significant reasons on why the decision was made. The three major sources that currently guide evidence and testimony admissibility: the Frye Standard, the Rule of 702; and, the Daubert Standard, as well as who can serve as an expert witness in a court of law.

Admission of illegally obtained evidence has been debated since the Charter was passed. In each trial, it must be decided if admitting the evidence in question would bring the “administration of justice into disrepute” which relies on whether “the reasonable person”, fully informed of the facts, would be shocked if a judge allowed the evidence to be admitted.

It is important to note that it is principally the duty of the court to determine who is an expert, ie, whether a person is sufficiently skilled to give expert evidence. (see the case of R v. Onitiri (1946) 12 WACA 58 at 59); see also section 186 of the Evidence Act). The court is assisted in discharging this duty by the expert witness stating his qualification and experience before leading evidence. See the case of Azu v. The State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 299) page 303. It should also be noted that the skill required for this purpose is not necessarily acquired by academic qualification or training; it may also be by experience (Shell Petroleum Development Co. (Nig) Ltd. V. Tiebo (1996), 4 NWLR (pt. 445) P. 657). Although the court will normally accept an un-contradicted expert evidence ( Siesmograph Service (Nig) Ltd V. Apkororo (1974) 6 SC 119), it will not be bound to do so where such opinion conflicts with common sense (Okoh v. The State. (1971) NMLR 140) or where the expert fails to state the basis of his opinion (Idudhe v. Eseh (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 451) P. 750). The correct test of the relevance of the witness`s opinion as that of an expert is whether he is specially skilled on the particular field in question (Siesmograph Service (Nig) Ltd. V. Onakpasa (1972) 1 ANLR (part 1) 343. Where evidence of an expert on a particular field is