My study on tribunal room observation focuses on observations from two tribunals. The first 1 was the Manchester Civil Justice Centre which is a new justness edifice in Manchester. It houses the Manchester County Court and the Manchester District Registry of the High Court, every bit good as Manchester City Magistrates ‘ Family Courts, the District Probate Registry and the Regional and Area Offices of the Court Service. The 2nd 1 was the Crown Court on Minsull Street in Manchester City Centre for condemnable tribunal observations. The Courts are held in order to decide local differences and maintain order in the society. This is an on-going procedure which started over six hundred old ages ago.
Before go toing, each tribunal was contacted in order to happen out the times and instances that could be attended as some instances such as young person instances are non unfastened to the populace. First I attended to the Manchester Civil Justice Centre. The entryway of the edifice was enforcing. After some counsel from the people there I attended to tribunal 20 of the fifth floor which there was a civil instance about a auto incident. The layout of the courtroom was simple there was no raised beds except from the justice ‘s. Besides there was non defendant ‘s box and no presence of constabulary. The justice, as expected, was a middle-class, middle-aged, white male. The public Saturday on the dorsum of the tribunal room.
The instance I have heard was about a auto incidence, as I mentioned supra. This instance included a claim from the one party and a counter claim from the other. The claim was made because the suspect did non see the complainant auto coming and seek to hedge. The counter claim was made by the suspect for personal hurt as the suspect injured his leg and his lower dorsum from the hit with the adult female ‘s auto. But as I have seen in the tribunal room the two claims examined at the same time by the justice so every bit in order to salvage clip. The legal manner to analyze a claim and a counter claim is to be analyzing individually, but in order non to blow of clip for this process, the justice examines the two claims at the same time.
As I entered the tribunal room I sat on the dorsum, where the public sits, confronting the justice bench at the other terminal of the room. In forepart of me on the right side there was the claimant with her canvasser and in forepart of them the Barrister sitting on a individually bed. On the left side was the suspect with his Barrister in forepart him. At first the claimant went to the informant base in order to be examined by both parties. The claimant said that she was parked at the terminal of the left side of the route and went to the stores near by. Afterwards she went back to hers auto and tried to acquire back on the route. But when she tried to travel to the right side of the route she did non detect the suspect ‘s auto on clip, so as she could non avoid them as it was excessively tardily so the two autos crushed. After her short address she crosses examined by the two advocators with several inquiries. Then the suspect went to the informant base. He said that he was driving across the route and all of a sudden without any indicant the claimant ‘s auto came into his side of the route. He tried to avoid her but holding merely seconds to respond he did non pull off to avoid her. At that point the claimant ‘s barrister insisted that he passed illicitly from the Pelican traversing few meters off from the incident. The suspect denied that. Besides another of import statement was that on the informant statement the suspect said that he broke his leg but afterwards the physician said that he had besides damaged his lower dorsum.
After the suspects scrutiny his male parent in jurisprudence came in for a witness statement as he was the co-driver at the clip of the incident. The justice and the complainant ‘s party tried to happen out if the suspect and his male parent in jurisprudence had of all time once more talked about the incident or merely the grounds. He answered negatively but he was a small spot baffled. At the terminal of the test the justice summarised all the grounds and facts from the beginning and gave his concluding opinion that the incident ‘s costs will be divided into 50 per centum to each and the test ‘s costs would be paid by the suspect.
As a have seen from my visit to the County Court one possible fact that may deter the parties from claiming is the much inquiring and cross-examination that they have to go through through. Cases in the County Court can be really comprehendible to put individuals. In fact, there were re-phrasing of inquiries that were non understood and attorneies responded good when asked to talk up. A fact that surprised me was that by the clip that the instance comes to the County Court, there is no inquiry of statutory reading or affair of jurisprudence. As seen from the instance it was simply a affair of fact alternatively to be based to the judicial case in point.
In mention to legal accomplishments, all attorneies were able to show these. Legal accomplishments refer to effectual research, communicating and administration accomplishments. All parties seemed to be to the full prepared. Another of import observations, was the function of the barristers and canvassers. The function of the barrister was, as expected to show the instances and the canvasser ‘s function was to make the chief organic structure of preparative work. Although canvassers have to compensate to talk in the tribunal room, there were a few cases in which the barrister would mention to the canvasser inquiring if all the points had been covered or if there were farther points that they felt relevant to discourse. But the factor that surprised me the most from my visit to the courtroom was, the minimum usage of case in point. The English jurisprudence system is one of common jurisprudence, as opposed to a civil jurisprudence system, which suggests that much accent is placed on the case in points and instance jurisprudence.
My following visit was the Crown Court on Minsull Street in Manchester City Centre as a pick for my condemnable tribunal observations. The layout of the Crown Court was more complicate from the Civil Justice Centre. There were two floors and ten courtrooms. The edifice looked different as it is traditional and old stylish in comparing with the Civil Justice Centre which is fresh new edifice. This may hold been due to the construction of the courtrooms and the architecture of the edifice. In add-on, the presence of constabulary makes it more formal.
However in order to happen timetable the response desk was contacted so as to cognize the instances that were being available to public. The courtroom in which I witness a instance was a traditional 1, where the juries sat in a high gallery and could see everything clearly. The courtroom had one raised bed for the justice and a down country in the Centre of the courtroom for the barristers and the canvassers to sit. Besides the suspect ‘s box was in the Centre of the courtroom. For the populace there was an upstairs public gallery at the dorsum of the courtroom.
The justice matched the stereotyped image of a middle-class, middle-aged, white male. In fact, the courtroom was full off in-between category, white males. In the courtroom there were no representatives from cultural minorities and merely few adult females take part in the instance. This supports the position that advocators are selected from a restricted societal background age, sex and position.
As this was a jury test, it was composed of 12 members, a mixture of male and female and of a scope of ages between 30 and 45. There were no cultural minorities, as stated above, and they all were dressed officially in suits, ties and shirts and were taking notes invariably. This I can state was as expected. It is frequently assumed that juries are under representative of the local community and furthermore that jury service allows ordinary people to take part in the disposal of justness.
The function of jurymans in a instance is to listen to the facts and give their finding of fact. I could hold wholly with the premise that jury keeps public ‘s religion as the jury system has existed for 100s of old ages. The jury system besides ensures the independency of the bench. They are independent adviser and are intended to advance natural justness. How of all time there is an statement that jury tests are an uneffective method of advancing justness as in some of drawn-out and complex instances, jurymans may non be capable of understanding grounds and follow the jurisprudence, people frequently may resent functioning on juries makes them much expensive. However, the subdivision 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 says that the prosecution may, in some serious instances examined merely by justice, if the juries can non follow the instance. Another issue is that juries do non hold to give grounds for their finding of facts. Although many times at that place have been suggestions to cut down the tests by jury, the English legal reforms have ne’er tried to get rid of the jury system wholly, alternatively reforms have actively tried to promote engagement. Furthermore everything in a instance has to be explained in layperson ‘s footings, so the justice must directed to the jury and explicate every misinterpretation portion which means that jury tests take a considerable sum of clip. Thus it is a fact that jury tests can be unduly long.
The instance I witnessed itself was easy to follow. It involved a battle between two neighbors. The prosecuting officer, a adult female, prosecuted the suspect, a 30 old ages old adult male with the offense that he bit her and her girl up. The battle was about a parking infinite across their places. The adult female was non present at the courtroom but her witness statement was read once more. I suppose that at the first hearing the prosecuting officer examined by the tribunal. Then, the suspect took topographic point at the suspect ‘s box so as to be examined by the two advocators. From the beginning of his address he insisted that he had ne’er beat up the prosecuting officer and her girl but on the other manus he claimed that he was terrified because he has been having many menaces late. Although, he said that he is non walking around of his ain house any more and that the adult female is unsafe. Besides he added that she tried to fight him and non frailty versa. The prosecuting officer ‘s barrister to oppose this statement brought to the tribunal grounds that the physician who examined the suspect could non establish any marks of such an action. Nevertheless it was held that this statement could non be precise because the purposes of the prosecuting officer were unknown and the marks of the battle may faded by the clip the physician examined the suspect. The juries were paying great attending to the instance. The justice seemed to be steadfast with his determinations and ever took into history any factors. Besides he directed the jury good, explicating every process of oppugning and summing once more the addresss of the informants. Finally a informant for suspect came to the room. The informant, the girl of the suspect said that the prosecuting officer hit her and after that she started to shout. At the terminal of the instance there were many effectual statements heard which I believe may hold influence the juries determination for the suspect.
To sum up the instance was easy to follow, and comprehendible to put people, wholly different from what I had expected. The hard portion was that the jury tests take really long clip. This happens because of the fact that everything has to be explained to layman ‘s ears by the justice.
I was surprised at how simple the facts of the instance were. But another critical issue as seen in the Civil Court was the small mention to case in point, simply saying merely a subdivision within the relevant legislative act. This supports the thought that the intent of the tribunals is to discourse, inquiry and make up one’s mind on grounds. However since the instance was so long, the decision was set to be another twenty-four hours, and so I was n’t able to see the result. But I believe that the juries will assoil the suspect from all the charges as they shown to sympathize him.
The legal action in the Crown Court appeared to be much more formal than those in the Civil Justice Courts. This may be because in the Crown Court the instances are more serious and expect greater attending and there is besides the presence of constabulary. Although in the Crown Court you have many people involved in the instance such as the juries, who they will give the concluding determination to the instance, the hearings are comprehendible to put individuals. Furthermore in some serious and hard instances the juries can non easy follow them so as the determination will come from the justice himself. However I believe that tests by juries are the simple of democracy, so as the public feels more confident. The jury services are great importance so they may non hold to be abolished. The tribunals as I have seen in act are efficient in hearing instances and accomplishing accurate consequences. A affair which is questionable is whether or non the restrict background of Judgess, juries and other legal advocators allows them to sympathize with the general populace and reflect true justness. In general, I believe that it was a valuable penetration into the legal action of condemnable and civil proceedings.