Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter V. The Anglo-Saxon system of evidence today
›
5.2. Specialities of the English system
›
5.2.3. The judicial phase

5.2.3. The judicial phase

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  1. Evidence obtained during the investigation phase is only examined first in court proceedings. Accordingly, the role of the preparatory procedures is particularly important, as the court1 has wide discretionary powers as regards the preliminary assessment and admissibility (i.e. legality) of evidence discovered during the investigative phase. In judicial practice, the reliability of the evidence under investigation is therefore a primary consideration. 2
  2. Preliminary hearings are also open to the public, whether it is a decision on a request for release, a decision on bail, etc. However, media coverage is subject to strict rules, reporting on these hearings is prohibited until a final decision is taken, and the media are not allowed to report on evidence against the accused ("contempt of court”).3
  3. All statements made in the courtroom in the context of the trial are recorded in a so-called shorthand transcript, which is corrected later if necessary (unlike in the European model, the judge does not dictate anything in the transcript). “The verbatim record is extremely important, as it is the only basis on which the court of appeal can judge the objectivity of the conduct of the trial.”4
  4. The jury is specifically empowered to consider the defendant’s silence as an incriminating circumstance.5 Therefore, in addition to the presumption of innocence, the accused has an inherent interest in providing evidence relevant to the defence.6
  5. Even in the courtroom, the professional judge informs lay judges about the legal aspects of the case.7 In doing so, the specialised judge summarises the facts of the case, cautions the jury as to the admissibility of the evidence adduced and draws attention to the causal links he has identified, stating that the prosecution and defence may supplement these findings. The jury shall then reach its verdict independently, without the participation of the special judge. If any question arises in the course of this deliberation, either as to the facts or as to the legal classification, the judge, the prosecution and the defence shall answer it together.8
  6. Under this construction, the English judge – unlike the American – has complete control over the evidence, as he can determine the jury’s task in detail. In doing so, he draws attention to the facts to be proved (in essence, he sets out the framework of the evidence), explains general legal concepts on which the jury can make notes and even use them in subsequent decision-making.9
  7. The lodging of an appeal does not affect the status of the debtor. Accordingly, once a conviction has been handed down at first instance, regardless of whether an appeal has been lodged, the accused is automatically considered to be convicted and the sentences can be enforced immediately.10 (I note that this practice seems to be somewhat problematic from the point of view of the presumption of innocence.)
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In English court proceedings, there have been a number of recent laws which clearly indicate that the legislature intends to relax the “monopoly” of the accusatorial system of evidence. These amendments concern in particular the principle of indirectness and the possibility of bringing an appeal:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allowed the reading of a witness’s written statement under certain conditions if the witness is no longer alive at the time of the trial or if he or she is physically or mentally unable to attend;11
  • under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, the accused cannot “cross-examine” themselves. If the accused fails to provide a power of attorney, the court will appoint a defender against his or her wishes and the defender will be entitled to cross-examine the accused;12 this rule also breaks with the Anglo-Saxon legal principle that the accused alone may decide whether he wishes to defend himself or through a lawyer, and also departs from the concept that the defender must represent his client and must act solely on the instructions of his client;13
  • under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the judge may allow a witness to give evidence at a trial if the witness is afraid to appear in person;14
  • in some cases, final decisions can be challenged: on this basis, the accuser can present evidence which, after the event and in a limited context, has little connection with the facts of the case, but which clearly shows the defendant’s character. 15
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

It is still a fundamental requirement to be instructed on the admissibility of confessions and the right to be present, and to be warned repeatedly about this. However, failure to do so does not automatically exclude the admissibility of the evidence in question, and the court has sole discretion to decide on such matters.16
1 See under the provisions of the PACE 1984 (§ 78)
2 László Kis: A büntetőeljárási törvény első éve. [The first year of the Criminal Procedure Act.] Debreceni konferenciák IV. [Debrecen Conferences IV.] 2005. 64.
3 Károly Bárd: Az eljárási rendszerek közelítése. [Approximation of procedural systems.] In: Pusztai László emlékére. [In memory of László Pusztai] ibid. 31–32.
4 Mahler (2003) ibid. 79.
5 Zsanett Fantoly: A büntető tárgyalási rendszerek sajátosságai és a büntetőeljárás hatékonysága. [The characteristics of criminal trial systems and the efficiency of criminal proceedings.] Budapest, HVG-ORAC, 2013. 116.
6 Gabriella Kármán: Bizonyítás az angloamerikai büntetőeljárási rendszerben. [Evidence in the Anglo-American Criminal Procedure System.] In György Vókó (ed.): Kriminológiai tanulmányok 51. [Criminological Studies 51.] Budapest, OKRI, 2014. 125.
7 In our country’s system of seats, this only takes place in closed deliberation before a decision is taken.
8 Zsanett Fantoly (2013) ibid. 104.:
9 Widmar, Neil: World Jury Systems, New York, Oxford University Press 2000, pp. 81–84. in Fantoly (2012) ibid. 116–117.
10 Bárd (2014) ibid. 32.
11 Criminal Justice Act 1988, Sections 23 and 25
12 Mcewan, Jenny: Ritual, Fairness and Truth: The Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Criminal Trial: The Trial on Trial, Volume 1, Truth and Due Process, Oregon, Hart Publishing, 2004. 57.
13 Nagorcka ibid. 452–465 In: Bárd (2014) ibid. 28.
14 Criminal Justice Act, 2003. section 116(2)(e)
15 Among other things, so-called royal commissions have been set up to deal with such cases, in addition to the traditional courts, with judges playing a much more active role. Mason, Anthony.
16 Ágnes Kelemen: A bizonyítás egyes kérdései a büntető eljárásban Angliában. [Certain issues of evidence in criminal proceedings in England.] Magyar Jog, 1991/8. 485–493.
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