This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The Criminal Justice System trial process in England and Wales are operated on the basis, and can be described as an adversarial system of justice. Perhaps, I am directing my attention, the criminal trial process, how has been changed. I should begin an adversarial system, where the parties are responsible for presenting evidence before passive and neutral trial judge or jury. This differs from an inquisitorial system, which is exists most of Europe. In many jurisdictions the criminal laws can be traced the date when a new system of government was introduced bringing change to the role of government to criminal procedures in particular. The criminal law is the system of practices and possible represent justice. English criminal trials from the late seventeenth to the early twentieth century's were different from those of today. Trials were really quick, lawyers were rarely presented. After the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has made certain change to the mode of trial procedures. In highlight for going important to address the restorative justice program, which is bring victims and offenders focus on the crime, address problems within communities. On the other side highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal trials. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve. However, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice are rare and wrongful imprisonment.
The creation of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee and in 2005 the trial and pre-trial process were brought together in a new criminal procedure rule. The management of cases is a new feature of the criminal justice system, the rules more accessible and together in ones place. It is a significant step, powers of judicial case management. Before the introduction of Due Process, people accused of a crime, given private trials with no defence. The main objectives of the criminal justice process are, against all offenders who break those rules. In England and Wales the criminal justice system has evolved over the years a considerable period. There are many features of the criminal procedure followed by more detailed descriptions of policing, and prosecution criminal courts, sentencing and the panel system, and the governmental and, administrative context of criminal justice. I shall shortly identify a striking example of the benefit of a joined up to criminal trail process. The goals in England and Wales aims to reduce crime by bringing more offence to justice, and to raise public confidence that the system is fair and will deliver law for citizen. There are many advantages and disadvantages having in the criminal trial process of England and Wales. Particularly important to understand the influence of rule of law, and how these of principles shapes the way that criminal justice is defined and implemented.
Must be criminal cases start in the Magistrates' Court. In a year more than one million cases are heard by Magistrates, they are simply citizen, without any kind of training. The other area where, those cases are seen is in the Crown Court where juries are used, they are part of the criminal justice trial process. The system of jury trails are twelve honest citizens who offering common sense and values. Let me highlight some very important advantages of the system having juries. It gives to the public confidence and acceptance for juries decisions. It gives a person a right to be tried by lay people, who have no legal knowledge and juries do understand the situation better than qualified people, who only look at the situation, with their special knowledge, and this can be sometimes lead to a miscarriage of justice. Perhaps, it is have to avoid as humanly possible.
Another example for an advantage of the criminal trial process, when the jury has a power and decide cases on their idea of fairness. Although, as we shall see for example, in R v Ponting (1984). When the civil servant leaked information to a MP on the ground of public interest, and the jury refused to convict despite the fact that, the defendant had no legal defence. In the above case, therefore, it seems the legal system more open because member of public involved and whole process takes in public. Basically the trial involved a confrontation the victim of the crime and the defendant. The defendant was expected to explain the evidence presented against them. However these procedures provided reasonable means of determining guilt and innocence, from a modern point of view this is disadvantage the defence. Shall we see now of the other end, trials without a jury. Directions are no more than matters of common sense. The cases where the judge is satisfied to the evidence of real, able to present the danger that jury tampering would take a place to it.
After the reform the criminal trial has some beneficial advantages. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) it is amends the law relating to police powers, which is particularly useful in cases where computer or financial evidence may need. It has a dramatic change has been made in the role of trial judges. There was no time to inform the judges of all the details of the case. Well, it is an advantages of the trial, the judge have a time to identify the issue. I agree with that, it is highly beneficial of the trial. I would like address the defence statement and disclosure. The Act makes amendments to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. As we shall see it, before the reform the prosecution would provide primary disclosure to the defence, and the defence would provide a defence statement, and the prosecution in response would provide secondary disclosure. This may demonstrates the weakness of the prosecution cases. Section 8 of the Act is made to the extent the evidence disclosed by the prosecution under its duty of disclosure.
However, we shall see also disadvantages of the criminal trial process, after the reforms. The prisoner right to make an application to the High Court, it is my point of view, every cases takes longer than it should be. The right source can be take time, while the jury seeking further information can be confusing for judges. There is expensive cost for all this.
Although, we can see now, some disadvantages of having jury in the criminal justice process. Unqualified people may not understand the points of law. The trial process placed defendants at a disadvantage. Without the benefit of legal assistance, they had to organise their cases on their own, while in prison awaiting trial. Until the actual trial, they were unaware of the specific evidence that would be presented against them and therefore had to respond spontaneously to what the witnesses said. This was thought to be the best way of ascertaining the truth. The lawyers had a right to address the jury, and gave prisoners the right to see copies of the depositions against them. Prosecutors could also suffer under this system. They also frequently went without counsel, and judges could be sympathetic to defendants. However the prosecutors had the advantage of being able to plan their case in advance, at liberty and at their leisure. It is arguable that the criminal trial process of, on the one hand, the rules of evidence, which is require proof at trial, but on the other hand, the party prosecution have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the system to identify the truth. Criticism of the jury system in criminal trial process has emphasised the high cost of juries to the court system. In addition the technical nature and trials difficulty for lay people to understand purportedly leads to unintentional jury nullification.
In the light for going of the recent miscarriages of justice occurs not only when an innocent person is convicted but also when a guilty person is not convicted. Therefore has much to lose by cooperating to archive justice. According to my opinion from an ethical point of view should miscarriage be avoidable every possible measures should be taken to prevent those regardless of the costs involved, however I must accept that in practice this route is often not the viable one.
In conclusion a jury trial is of necessity predicated on continuous and adversarial oral presentation of evidence, but such a method of determining criminal cases is time and resource intensive. Criminal trial to be heard without jury, would thus probably reduce cost, and would also enhance opportunities to deal with matters in alternative ways not subject to the same concern about admissibility and evidence, and hence possibly also increase predictability.
To my mind, however the criminal justice system England and Wales, the system of jury trial depends on twelve parties and true coming to court and listening to the case. Witness who will give evidence and answers the questions, counsel speak address the jury, judges speak and give direction. The current criminal justice process, in major trials involving fraud is made available to jurors on screens, but not without difficulty. The implications of all this for the criminal justice system are important. However, in jury trial in particular the public opinion can never really be kept out of the court room. Not everyone agrees with these changes when opposition is expressed on principal, it requires attention.