The law school of America. Criminal procedure is the
adjudication process of criminal law, while criminal procedure
differs dramatically by jurisdiction the process.
Generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person
on trial. Either being free on bail or
incarcerated and results in the conviction or acquittal of the
defendant criminal procedure can be either in the form of
inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure basic rights.
Currently. In many countries with a
democratic system and the rule of law.
Criminal procedure puts the burden of Of proof on the
prosecution. That is it is up to the
prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty Beyond any
reasonable doubt as opposed to having the defense prove that
they are innocent and any doubt is resolved in favor of the
defendant this provision known as the presumption of innocence
is required. For example, in the 46 countries
that are members of the Council of Europe under article 6 of the
European convention on human rights and it is included in
other human rights documents. However, in practice, it
operates somewhat differently in different countries Basic rights
also include the right for the defendant to know what offense,
he or she has been arrested for is being charged with and the
right to appear before a Judicial, official within a
certain time of being arrested, many jurisdictions also allow
the defendant the right to legal counsel and provide any
defendant who cannot afford their own lawyer with a lawyer,
paid for at the public expense difference in criminal and civil
procedures most countries. Make a rather clear distinction
between civil and criminal procedures.
For example, an English Criminal Court May force a defendant to
pay a Fine. As punishment for his crime and
he may sometimes have to pay the legal costs of the prosecution,
but the victim of the crime. Pursues is claim for
compensation in a civil, not a criminal action in France,
Italy, and many other countries, besides the victim of a crime
known as the injured party may be awarded damages by a criminal
court judge, the standards of proof are higher in a criminal
action than in a civil one. Since the loser risks, not only
financial penalties, but also being sent to prison or in some
countries execution. In English, law, the prosecution
must prove the guilt of a criminal Beyond Reasonable
Doubt, but the plaintiff in a civil action is required to
prove his case on the balance of probabilities.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt, is not defined for the jury, which
decides the verdict. But it has been said by appeal
courts, that proving guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt requires
the prosecution to exclude any reasonable hypothesis.
Consistent with innocence plumpy are in a civil case.
However, the court simply weighs the evidence and decides what is
most probable criminal and civil procedure are different.
And although some systems, including the English, allow a
private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution against
another citizen. Criminal actions are nearly
always started by the state civil actions.
On the other hand are usually started by individuals in
anglo-american law, the party, bringing a criminal action.
That is in most cases, the state is called the prosecution, but
the party bringing a civil action is the plaintiff in both
kinds of action. The other party is known as the
defendant a criminal case in the United States against Person
named Miss Sanchez would be entitled United States v short
for versus or against Sanchez if initiated by the federal
government if brought by a state the case would typically be
called State. V Sanchez or people.
V. Sanchez in the United Kingdom,
the criminal case would be styled are short for rex or
Regina. That is the king or queen V
Sanchez in both the United States and the United Kingdom, a
civil action between Miss Sanchez, and a mr.
Smith would be Sanchez. V Smith started by Sanchez and
Smith V, Jesus begun by Smith evidence, given at a criminal
trial is not necessarily admissible in a civil action
about the same matter, just as evidence given in a civil cause
is not necessarily admissible on a criminal trial.
For example, the victim of a road accident, does not directly
benefit if the driver who injured him is found guilty of
the crime of careless driving. He still has to prove his case
in a civil action. In fact, he may be able to prove
his civil case, even when the driver is found not guilty in
the criminal trial, if the accused has given evidence on
his trial, he may Cross-examined on those statements in a
subsequent civil action regardless of the criminal
verdict. Once the plaintiff has shown,
that the defendant is liable. The main argument in a civil
court, is about the amount of money or damages, which the
defendant should pay to the plaintiff differences between
civil law and common law systems.
The majority of civil law jurisdictions civil law as a
type of law system. Not as opposed to criminal law,
follow an inquisitorial system of adjudication in which judges
undertake an active investigation of the claims by
examining the evidence at. The trial while other judges
contribute likewise by preparing reports in common law systems.
The trial judge presides over proceedings grounded in the
adversarial system of dispute resolution, where both the
prosecution and the defense prepare arguments to be
presented. Before the court, some civil law
systems. Have adopted adversarial
procedures, proponents of either system tend to consider that
their system defends best the rights of the innocent.
There is a tendency in common law countries to believe that
civil law or inquisitorial systems do not have the
so-called presumption of Sense and do not provide the defense
with adequate rights conversely. There is a tendency in countries
with an inquisitorial system to believe that accusatorial
proceedings unduly favor, Rich, defendants who can afford large
legal teams and are very harsh on poor.
Defendants, a fair trial is a trial, which is conducted fairly
justly and with procedural, regularity by an impartial judge
various rights associated with a fair trial or explicitly
proclaimed in article, 10 of the universal.
Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Institution and article 6 of the
European Convention of human rights as well as numerous other
constitutions and declarations throughout the world.
There is no binding international law that defines.
What is not a fair trial. For example, the right to a jury
trial and other important procedures vary from Nation to
nation, definition in international human rights law.
The right to Fair trial is very helpful to explore in numerous
declarations which represent customary international law such
as the universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Udhr though the you HR enshrined, some Fair trial
rights such as the presumption of innocence, until the accused
is proven guilty in articles, six, seven, eight and 11.
The key provision is article 10, which states that everyone is
entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of
his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against
him. Some years after the udhr was
adopted the right to a fair trial was defined in more detail
in the international Covenant, on civil and political rights,
it /. Or the right to a fair trial as
protected in articles, 14 and 16 of the it /, which is binding
and international law in those states that are party to it
article 14. One establishes the basic right.
To a fair trial article, 14 to provides for the presumption of
innocence and article 14, three sets out a list of minimum, Fair
trial rights and criminal proceedings article 14, 5
establishes. The right of a convicted person
to have a higher Court review, the conviction or sentence and
article 14 7 prohibits, Double Jeopardy article, 14, It's that
all persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals
in the determination of any criminal charge against him or
of his rights and obligations in a suit at law.
Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a
competent independent and impartial tribunal established
by law, the press, and the public may be excluded from all
or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or
National Security in a Democratic Society where when
the interest of the private lives of the party.
So requires order the extent strictly necessary.
In the opinion of the art in special circumstances where
publicity would Prejudice the interests of justice, but any
judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall
be made public. Except where the interest of
juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings
concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children
Geneva conventions, the Geneva conventions, GC and their
additional protocols APS require that any prisoners of War facing
a Judicial proceeding, receive a fair trial, for example,
articles 102 to 108 of the 1940. I'm third.
Geneva Convention detail requirements for the fairness of
Trials, against prisoners of War.
Other Provisions, require a fair and regular trial safeguards of
proper trial and defense an impartial and regularly
constituted Court respecting. The generally recognized
principles of regular judicial procedure a regularly,
constituted court affording. All the judicial guarantees
which are recognized as indispensable by civilized
peoples and Court. Offering the essential
guarantees of Independence and impartiality, definition and
Regional Human Rights law. The right to a fair.
Our trial is enshrined In Articles 37 and 26 of the
African Charter on human and people's rights at Spur.
The right to a fair trial is also enshrined In Articles, 5, 6
and 7 of the European convention on human rights and articles,
224 of the seventh protocol to the convention, the right, to a
fair trial as furthermore, enshrined In Articles, 3, 8 9,
and 10 of the American convention on human rights
relationship with other rights, the right to equality before the
law is sometimes regarded as part of the right to a fair
trial, It is typically guaranteed under a separate
article in international human rights.
Instruments. The right entitles individuals
to be recognized as subject, not as object of the law,
international human rights law permits, no derogation or
exceptions to this human, right closely related to the right to
a fair trial as the prohibition on ex post facto law or
retroactive law. Which is enshrined in human
rights. Instruments separately from the
right to Fair trial and cannot be limited by States.
According to the European convention on human rights and
the American convention on human.
One rights Fair trial rights the right to a fair trial has been
defined in numerous Regional and international human rights
instruments. It is one of the most extensive
human rights and all international human rights
instruments and Shrine it in more than one article.
The right to a fair trial is one of the most litigated human
rights and substantial case law that has been established on the
interpretation of this human right.
Despite variations in wording and placement of the various
Fair trial rights. International human rights
instruments to find the right to a fair trial and broadly, the
same terms. The aim of the right is to
ensure the proper administration of justice.
As a minimum, the right to Fair trial, includes the following
Fair trial rights in civil and criminal proceedings.
The right to be heard by a confident independent and
impartial tribunal the right to a public hearing, the right to
be heard within a reasonable time.
The right to counsel and the right to interpretation States,
May limit the right to a fair trial or derogate from the fair
trial rights only under circumstances specified.
In the human rights instruments in civil and criminal
proceedings. The European Court of human
rights in the inter-american court of human rights have
clarified that the right to a fair trial applies to all types
of judicial proceedings, whether civil or criminal, according to
the European Court of Human Rights Article, 6 of the
European convention on human rights and the fair trial rights
apply to all civil rights and obligations created under
domestic law and therefore to all civil proceedings refer to a
pay all those oh Tina covet sage and others V hungry 2000 in
administrator. Seedings both the European Court
of Human Rights and the inter-american court of human
rights have clarified. That the right to a fair trial
applies not only to judicial proceedings but also
administrative proceedings. If an individual's right under
the law is at stake, the dispute.
Must be determined through a fair process in special
proceedings in Europe. Special proceedings may also be
subject to article 6 of the European convention on human
rights in Mills V. The United Kingdom 2001, the
European Court of Human Rights held that a court-martial was It
to article 6 because the defendants have been accused of
what the court considered to be serious crime, assault with a
weapon and wounding, the African Commission on human and people's
rights each per frequently deals with instances, where civilians
are Tried by military tribunals for serious crimes.
The h / has held that on the face of it.
Military courts do not satisfy civilians.
Right? To a fair trial, refer to
constitutional rights project V Nigeria in this respect the h, /
has reaffirmed the right to counsel as essential in
guaranteeing a fair trial the h / held that The visuals have the
right to choose their own counsel and that giving the
Military Tribunal, the right to veto a council violates the
right to a fair trial in the United Kingdom, right?
To a fair trial in the United Kingdom is guaranteed by
article, 6 of The Human Rights Act 1998 between 1971 and 1975.
The right to a fair trial was suspended in Northern Ireland.
Suspects were simply imprisoned without trial and interrogated
by the British army, for information, this power was
mostly used against the Catholic minority The British government
supplied deliberately misleading evidence to the European Court
of human rights when it investigated this issue in 1978,
the Irish government and human rights group Amnesty,
International requested that the echr reconsider the case.
In December 2014, 3 court, cases related to the Northern Ireland
conflict that took place in, Mainland, Britain in 1975 and
1976 have been accused of being unfair resulting in the
imprisonment of the Birmingham. Six Guildford, four and McGwire
seven. These convictions were late.
Overturned though an investigation into allegations
that police officers, perverted the course of Justice failed to
convict anyone of wrongdoing. The United Kingdom created an
act, the special immigration appeals act in 1997, which then
led to the creation of the special immigration appeals
commission siac. It allowed for secret evidence
to be stated in court. However, it provides Provisions
for the anonymity of the sources and information itself.
The judge has the power to clear the courtroom of the public and
press and the appellant if need be if sense.
It've information must be relayed, the appellant is
provided with a special Advocate who is appointed in order to
represent their interests. However, no contact can be made
with the appellant after seeing the secret evidence.
Zack is mostly used for deportation cases and other
cases of public interest. Secret evidence has seen
increased use in UK courts. Some argue that this undermines
the British criminal justice system.
As this evidence may not come under proper Democratic
scrutiny. Secret evidence can now be used
in wide range of cases, including His hearings control
orders proceedings, parole board cases asset, freezing
applications pre-charge, detention hearings and terrorism
cases, employment tribunals and planning tribunals in England
and Wales the origin of right, to Fair trial.
And right, to be heard, can be traced back in the Magna Carta
act, 1215 article, 39 of the ACT speaks about Fair, trial and
Punishment by a competent Court after the trial, jury's and a
fair trial. The rationale for a jury was
that it offers a check against state power.
Under article 6 of the echr, the right, to a fair trial, implies
that the accused and public must be able to understand the
verdict trials. Decided by jury, as they do not
provide reasons for their decision, therefore, do not
allow for this in tax KV Belgium, a violation of article
61 was found the court. Also implied a right to a reason
verdict irrespective of whether that was given by a judge or a
jury. Under echr case law, jury
decisions can also be problematic in circumstances,
where juries draw adverse? Rinses from trial, judge's,
directions, in contravention of article 63 B and C.
The law school of America, the content used in the podcast is
licensed by the Wikimedia Foundation Incorporated under a
Creative Commons attribution/share-alike license.
The text has been modified for audio the content of these
podcasts is for informational purposes only and do not
constitute professional advice. These podcasts are not
associated with the Wikimedia foundation in Any context that
Louis School of America?