Legal History of Bangladesh

The Victorian Court System was made up of many different parts, including the three different courts, the different juries, and the lawyers. There were three different courts: the Petty Court, the Assize Court and the King’s/Queen’s Bench. Each of the three courts functioned to serve a different purpose, and worked together to hold all of the trials. There were also different court sessions, which included Petty Sessions, Quarter Sessions, Borough Sessions, and City Councils, all of which served different purposes. In addition to the courts and court sessions, there were also the two different juries and the different lawyers. All of these components of the court were very important to the trials, and made the court what we know it as today.

The courts are the formal courts of law that have been established over many years. Their purpose is to uphold the law of the land as dictated by statute and impose this law over those who appear to be in contradiction of these laws. A traditional court proceeding involves to opposing parties who present the facts of the case to the court and the presiding judge or sheriff rules in favour of one of the parties. Their

In Medieval times determination of guilt and innocence was unfair and people relied on God to be the determinant of guilt or innocence. Trial by ordeal was a practice that was used to decide whether you were guilty or innocent (thefinnertimes.com).Trial by ordeal was made up of 3 trials – trial by water, trial by fire and trial by combat. These trials all have different negative features; trial by water was when the accused and accuser get tied up and thrown into the water, if someone floated they were guilty and if they sunk they were innocent. Trial by fire was when you either had to walk barefoot on fire or you had to hold a red-hot bar for a certain amount of time, if when the accused came back after 3 days and their hand hadn’t started to heal, they were declared guilty (yesnet.yk.ca). Trial by combat was undoubtedly the most unfair trial out of them all.

6.What is the level of court, the case is being heard in? 2 marks (1 mark each article)

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

4. He is a magistrate therefore he reinforces laws and administers them which makes him so important.

In this task I will write a report about comparing the roles of judges, lawyers and lay people within the English courts.

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)

Identification of Parties and Procedural Details: Who is the Plaintiff/Appellant? Who is the Defendant/Appealer? What is the cause of action? Who prevailed in lower court? Who is appealing to what court?

For this criteria I will be producing a written evaluation of the effectiveness of magistrates and juries in the administration of justice in the English legal system.

The idea of trial by ordeal and its methods are that if an accused can endure the decided ordeal without any injury or with surviving it with minimal injury, it will be concluded that it was a will of God and that the accused is innocent. However, trial by ordeal is said to be the end point of a relatively formal judicial procedure. This formal judicial procedure has several local variations but historical research suggests that it is commonly comprised of four main

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The

This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.

Explain and critically consider the use of lay magistrates in the legal system of England and Wales.