Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter I. Paradigm shifts in the development of evidence in universal law
›
1.7. The Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions
›
1.7.1. English case law

1.7.1. English case law

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The characteristics of the English judicial system from the beginning can be summarised as (1) a “multi-channel” forum system, (2) jury trials, (3) precedent.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The initial structure of truth redemption can be described as follows:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. The ruler was assisted in judicial matters by the royal court (Curia Regis), which consisted of secular and ecclesiastical dignitaries and the kingdom’s main officials.
  2. From the 12th century onwards, the chancellery judged on behalf of the king, and by the 14th century three high courts had been formed. In addition to the Court of Exchequer, which dealt with treasury matters, and the Common Pleas, which dealt with civil cases, the King’s Bench specialised in criminal cases.
  3. The local judiciary was supervised by judges from the royal court. From the 14th century onwards, this activity was in the hands of the so-called “justices of the peace”, who acted as single magistrates in cases of minor or moderate offences.1
  4. As a result of the separation of church and state, over time the two branches of power developed their own legal and judicial systems, but justice was controlled by royal officials throughout the country.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

An important element of the common law system of justice is the jury system, which was established by Henry II.2 From then on (12th century), the basis of criminal prosecution was the preliminary verdict of the jury, the bill of indictment, on which it was written that the accused was ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. Then the institution of the jury, which was the jury that decided on the question of guilt and had to reach a unanimous verdict in all cases, was established.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Edward I made jury trials compulsory in general (1275, First Statute of Westminster).3 The power of this form of adjudication became particularly evident when, in the treason trial against Lord Shaftesbury, the panel failed to agree to an indictment against the wishes of Charles II.4 The jury procedure was increasingly subject to a number of safeguards (e.g. the right of defence, the obligation to serve the indictment) and was abolished in the 1930s, partly because of the impending Second World War and partly because of problems of bias in the jury’s verdict.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

As far as the practice of law enforcement was concerned, the unity and consistency of the common law was ensured primarily by the royal court, whose judgments became precedent. This uniformity was further reinforced by the fact that the royal judges, taking away the powers of the local courts, went on so-called judicial tours, thus carrying with them the ‘law of Westminster’ in civil and criminal cases. The royal courts were constantly interpreting the law and, if they found local practice to be meaningless, they could – as a general rule – prohibit its application.
1 From the 11th century onwards, in England, public offences were separated from offences against private interests. The former were punishable by death and confiscation of property, while the latter were punishable only by compensation. Kisteleki–Lővétei–Nagyné Szegvári–Rácz–Schweitzer–Tóth (1998) ibid. 227–229.
2 Originally, the jury was a body of free persons who were questioned under oath by an official of the king. Following the reform of the courts in 1166, the twelve most prominent men in each century, and the four most prominent men in each village, were heard to determine who had committed a crime in the area.
3 Over time, however, it became clear that the same person could not be a member of both the prosecution and the jury.
4 Ákos Farkas: Mentőöv a büntető igazságszolgáltatásnak. [A lifeline for criminal justice: plea bargaining in the US.] In Ferenc Nagy (ed.): Ad futuram memoriam. Szeged, Pólay Elemér Alapítvány, 2007. 23.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave