Criminal Justice

(Rene Dupont is a young French, law student who, during a visit to London, stayed with an English family. His host, Mr Churchman, is now writing to tell Rene something about criminal justice in England.)

The Authors’ Club,

London, S.W.I.

5 November 19___

Dear Rene,

While you were staying with us during the summer, I remember you asked me a lot of questions about law in this country. I'm afraid I wasn’t able to help you much. We read in our papers about trials in the law courts, but few law-abiding citizens are experts on the subject.

You asked me to tell you how criminal trials in England differ from criminal trials in Europe, and I couldn't tell you much—except, I remember, that I said that in England a person accused of crime must always be supposed innocent until he has been proved guilty. Newspapers mustn't describe the accused as 'the thief or 'the murderer'; he's 'the accused' or 'the prisoner'.

Lastmonth I served as a member of the jury at an important criminal trial, so I learnt quite a lot. I thought you’d be interested,that’s why I’m writing. I'm giving you only some general impressions. The newspaper reports I'm sending separately give a fairly complete of the trial.

The prisoner was accused of robbing a bank and of wounding the night watchman who tried to stop him. He pleaded 'Not Guilty', so the trial was a long one. We had to listen to some long speeches and a lot of evidence.

I'm over fifty and this was my first experience of serving as a juror. We're liable for jury service between 21 and 60, so you see I might have been called on many years ago. Of the twelve members of the jury, three were women. Two of the men were small shop-keepers, one was a motor mechanic, another was a school teacher. I didn't find out what the others were, but you can see we were a mixed lot.

We had three stories to listen to. First there was the story told, by the counsel for the prosecution, then the story told by the defending counsel, and lastly the story told by the judge, a summing up of what was said by counsel and witnesses. By 'counsel' I mean the barrister or barristers employed on either side.

The prosecuting counsel began by telling the court what he intended to prove by evidence. Then he called his witnesses. These persons can say what they know only in answer to questions, so the examination of witnesses is very important. Every witness may be examined by the barrister who is defending the prisoner. This is the cross-examination. The judge can interfere if he thinks any of the questions are unfair. He always objects to what are called 'leading questions, questions that suggest answers instead of asking for information. (Perhaps you know the old example: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’) Leading questions are allowed, however, in cross-examination.

The defending counsel then had his turn. He called new witnesses, including the accused man himself. These witnesses were then cross-examined by the prosecuting counsel.

The law of evidence is very strict. Every witness must, before he goes into the witness box, swear an oath, with his hand on the Bible, 'to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' A witness may tell only what he himself knows to be true. 'Hearsay' evidence is not allowed. If, for example, Mr X saw a man forcing a way into a building, he can describe what he saw, and this is evidence. If he tells his wife about it, a description of what happened, given by the wife, is not evidence. She heard her husband's story, but she herself did not see what happened.

When all the evidence had been given, and the examination of the witnesses was finished, counsel for both sides made further speeches. Counsel for the Prosecution tried to show that, from the evidence they had heard, the jury could only find the prisoner guilty. Counsel for the Defence tried to show that the prisoner was not guilty. Then the judge summed up.

There are quite a lot of people in England who think that twelve ordinary men and women are not capable of understanding properly all the evidence given at criminal trials. I had doubts about this myself until I served as juror last month. I don’t feel so doubtful now. Our judges are expert in summing up the evidence. They take notes during the trial. The judge, in the case I'm writing his summing up, he said to us, ‘Will you please consider your evidence, and in the speeches made by counsel for both sides. He favoured neither prosecution nor defence. He told us what crime the accused would be guilty of, if the evidence supplied by the prosecution was true.

The members of the jury have to decide only the questions of fact. Questions of law are for the judge. So when the judge had finished his summing up, he said to us, ‘Will you please consider your verdict?’

We retired to a private room to do this. I was elected foreman (or chairman). You probably know that if the jury cannot agree they must be discharged and that there is then a new trial with a fresh jury. A verdict has to be unanimous. In this case we were not long in reaching a decision. The evidence against the accused man was so strong that we had no need to discuss it for long. English law requires that the guilt of an accused man must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. We had no doubt at all, so when we returned to the court and I was asked, 'Do you find the prisoner Guilty or Not Guilty?' I gave the answer 'Guilty'.

Here's another interesting point about the law of evidence. The police may know quite a lot about previous life of the accused man. They may have records to show that he is a habitual criminal, that he has often been accused of crime and proved guilty. The police may know quite a lot about the previous life of the accused. But this information cannot be given in court until after the jury have brought in their verdict.

In this case the police records showed that the prisoner had served three terms of imprisonment for robbery, one of them being robbery with violence. If we had known this before we considered our verdict, and if the evidence against the man had been weak, we might have been inclined to declare him guilty, in spite of weak evidence against him.

The prisoner's past record of crime, if he has one, is given after the verdict so that the judge may know better what sentence to pass. If the accused has never before been convicted of crime, the sentence is not likely to be severe, unless the crime is one of violence. First offenders are usually treated with sympathy. If, on the other hand, the accused man has a long record of convictions, the judge will pass a more severe sentence.

There’s one more point worth mentioning. The police officers who find and arrest an accused man may appear as witnesses at the trial. But they appear only as witnesses. They have no share in the examination of the accused. There is a clear division between the forces of the law who keep order and the forces who conduct trials in the law-courts.

I’ve probably told you much you already know, and perhaps English law is not so different from French law as I think it is. But I hope you’ll find this letter interesting. You were here in the summer, when you’ll have a chance to attend a criminal trial? We’d be very pleased to see you again.

Best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

John Churchman

Date: 2015-09-24; view: 978; Нарушение авторских прав