Law legislation act statute bill by-law

NB: one word must be used twice. [C] means a countable noun, [U] - uncountable.

1 a suggested new law that has to be approved by the government before it can officially become a law. In legal usage capitalised [C]. In her speech, the Queen outlined the _____ s which the government would put before Parliament in the coming session.

2 a law that has been officially accepted by Parliament. In legal usage capitalised and often used in titles of laws [C]. Three people were arrested after the bombing under the Prevention

of Terrorism __________.

3 a law written down and officially passed by the government [C]. Wales and England share a

common legal system but some__________ s make special provision for Wales.

4 a law made by Local Government or public body [C]. That year the University club changed

Its___________ s and admitted its first female members.

5 the act or process of passing a law; also, laws established by a government to control a

particular activity or situation [U]. Existing___________ on the minimum wage needs to be

changed.

6 the whole system of laws or one of the rules in a system of law [U, C]. Everyone must, by __________, carry their identity papers at all times.

7 The MP introduced a___________ that would increase the minimum wage.

b) Write six sentences to illustrate the meanings of the words above.

Text 2: Criminal and Civil Procedure

Pre-reading tasks

1. Scan the text and say on what legal principles must a civil and a criminal case be proved.

2. Read the text carefully and answer the questions that follow.

Anyone who breaks the law may face prosecution under the laws of the country. In England there are two kinds of prosecution: criminal and civil. As you already know, criminal law is tj1e law of crimes and their punishments, and civil law is the law of settling disputes between private individuals. So it is common to speak about criminal offences but civil wrongs.

Criminal and civil proceedings are normally easily distinguishable. A criminal case will involve an individual person or body and the state. The offender is confronted in court not so much by another individual but by the whole state in the person of the prosecutor. This is because the state considers anti-social behaviour not simply as a matter between two individuals but as a danger to the well-being and order of society as a whole. And although English law allows a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution against another citizen, criminal proceedings are nearly always started by the state. Civil actions, on the other hand, are usually started by individuals.

In criminal proceedings a prosecutor prosecutes a defendant. If the prosecution is successful and the verdict is ‘guilty’, the defendant has been convicted. He will now have a criminal record for that crime, and will be punished by one of a variety of punishments ranging from life imprisonment to a fine, which is paid to the court. He may also have to pay compensation to the victim and the legal costs of the prosecution. (Costs are the expenses of legal proceedings). If the defendant is found not guilty, he has been acquitted. There will be no record, and he will be allowed to leave court without punishment.

A civil case will involve two or more individual persons or bodies. Here, a claimant sues a defendant, or brings a claim against him (formerly, before the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999, the person making a claim was called a plaintiff and he brought an action against a defendant). The proceedings, if successful, result in judgment for the claimant, which means that the defendant is found liable and the judge may order the defendant to pay the claimant money, or damages. In civil proceedings, the general principle is that the loser of the case must pay the costs of the winner, though English judges have a wide discretion and may sometimes award costs against both parties.

So, now it should be clear that when people utter threats 'I'll sue you' or 'I'll prosecute you', they mean entirely different kinds of prosecution. Strictly speaking, the word 'prosecution' signifies the bringing of criminal charges against someone, but it is also used with regard to civil proceedings. Likewise, the word 'liable', although primarily referring to civil cases, is also used in criminal contexts.

The duty to prove the case is called the burden of proof. In criminal cases the burden of proof falls on the prosecution: it is the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt, the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. This is so because of a fundamental principle underlying criminal law, the presumption of innocence: every person charged with a criminal offence is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or, briefly, ‘a man is innocent until proven guilty’. A lawyer could defend his client simply by trying to point out weaknesses in the prosecution case.

The degree of proof required to make the court sure of guilt is known as the standard of proof. Standards of proof are higher in a criminal action than in a civil one since the penalties are stricter. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the guilt of a criminal ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Proving a case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means that the prosecution must make the court sure that the defendant committed the crime. If the court is not sure and has a reason (not just a feeling or intuition) for its doubt, it must acquit. It must acquit even if it finds that the defendant was probably guilty!

The famous American film “12 Angry Men”, the classic of the genre, opens with the instruction of the judge to the jury just before they retire to reach the verdict. The judge explains the important criteria for judgment: ‘If there’s a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however, there is no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen.’ For the rest of the film the jurors passionately debate the credibility of the witnesses furnished by the prosecution, and when finally all of them are convinced that the old man’s and the woman’s testimonies cannot be fully trusted, they reach the verdict of ‘not guilty’.

In a civil action, the burden of proof is on the claimant, or applicant, bringing the case. He is required to prove his case ‘on a balance of probabilities’, i.e. to show that it is more probable than not that his case is right. But he does not have to make the court sure about it; it is enough to show that the defendant was probably guilty. As in a criminal case, the presentation of evidence is left to the parties. The function of the judge is to enforce the rules governing evidence and to ask supplementary questions if he feels that the parties have failed to clarify the facts. The preponderance of evidence will decide the case in favour of one or the other party.

One and the same offence may sometimes result in both kinds of prosecution, civil and criminal. For example, the driver who injured a passer-by will not only face criminal penalties imposed by a criminal court but may have to pay compensation for injuries ordered by a civil court (unless, of course, the parties manage to agree privately). In some countries one prosecution deals with both kinds of offences and all matters are settled in one court, but in England there are different courts for settling civil disputes and criminal prosecutions. Evidence from a criminal trial is not necessarily admissible as evidence in a civil action about the same matter. Even if the offender is found guilty, the victim who decides to sue him for damages still has to prove his case in a civil action. In fact, he may be able to prove his civil case even when the offender is found not guilty in the criminal trial.

It is possible in English law to bring a civil action against the police, for example, if someone was mistreated when questioned by the police. But normally complaints against the police are investigated by an independent body, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCG). It is a non-departmental public body funded by the Home Office, but by law entirely independent of the police, interest groups and political parties, and its decisions on cases are free from government involvement.

Citation of cases

Since all law books mention actual cases, it is useful to know how cases are cited. Criminal trials are brought in the name of the Crown as representing the State. Thus, a criminal case against a person called Smith would be cited as R. v. Smith, where ‘R.’ is short for ‘Regina’ or ‘Rex’ (a ‘Queen’ or a ‘King’, depending on who is on the throne) and ‘v.’ is short for ‘versus’. Informally, it will be pronounced as written ‘R. v. Smith’ or ‘R. and Smith’. In court, however, the proper method is to call it ‘The Queen against Smith’. In the case of a minor offence tried in a lower court, the name of the actual prosecutor, usually a policeman will appear instead of the nominal prosecutor, the Queen. (In the United States the wording will often be The People v. Smith.)

Civil cases are usually cited by the names of the parties, e.g. Smith v. Anglia Television Ltd, and pronounced ‘Smith and Anglia Television Limited’.

In appeal cases, the name of the party bringing the appeal comes first. Thus, should Anglia Television decide to appeal the case, it would be cited as Anglia Television Ltd v. Smith. Similarly, a criminal case will be cited on appeal, for example, Smith v. DPP (where DPP means Director of Public Prosecutions) or Smith v. Attorney-General.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 1358