Court and Trial Justice and Law in Great Britain

I. Pre-reading activities: look up the words in the dictionary and memorise their pronunciation:

precedence magistrates

fraud judiciary

liaison mandatory

councilors manslaughter

rigorously

II. Read the text. Divide it into logical parts. Find a key sentence for each part.

England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland all have their own legal system, with considerable differences as well as similarities in law, organization and practice. All three have separate prosecution, police and prison services. Crime prevention policy and non-custodial treatment for offenders are similar throughout Britain.

The main sources of law are government legislation, common law and European Community law. EC law, deriving from Britain's membership of the European Union, is confined mainly to economic and social matters; in certain circumstances it takes precedence over domestic law.

Criminal Justice

The criminal justice system aims to prevent and reduce crime, and to deal fairly and without delay with those suspected or accused of crimes. It also aims to help victims of crime and punish suitably those found guilty.

As in Western Europe generally, there has been a substantial increase in crime since the early 1950s. About 5 million crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1994. Crime tends to be concentrated in large cities and urban areas, with over 90 percent of recorded offences directed against property and only a small proportion involving violence.

Important measures to strengthen the criminal justice system have been taken in recent years. For example, the courts now have powers to confiscate the proceeds from serious crime, such as drug trafficking, robbery and fraud. Strict legislative controls on firearms are in force. The Government has certain special powers to help in preventing and investigating terrorist crime. These take account of the need to maintain a proper balance between the safety of the public and the region of the individual.

Law enforcement is carried out by 52 locally based police forces, with a combined strength of about 150,000. Certain police services are provided centrally, either by the Government or through co-operation between forces. Police officers are normally unarmed and there are strict limits to police powers of arrest and detention. Police-community liaison groups operate in every police authority. They consist of representatives from the police, local councilors and community groups.

Most accused people are released on ball pending trial. They are not remained in custody unless strictly necessary. In British criminal trials the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Trials normally take place in open court, and rules of evidence, which are concerned with proof of facts, are rigorously applied. Less serious offences and the vast majority of criminal cases are tried before lay magistrates sitting without a jury. The most serious cases are tried in the higher courts before a jury of 12 (15 in Scotland) which decides on guilt or innocence. The judge decides questions of law, sums up the evidence for the jury, and discharges or sentences the accused. Juries are independent from the judges.

Legislation sets the maximum penalties for offences. Fines, community sentences (such as probation) or custody may be imposed on a convicted person, who has the right to appeal to a higher court. There is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Life imprisonment is maximum penalty for serious offences such as robbery, rape and manslaughter. The death penalty is not used.

Prisoners are housed in accommodation ranging from open prisons to high security establishments. Over 150 prisons contain a total of around 55,000 prisoners. There are separate prisons for women. Children are not normally kept in prison - the basic custodial sentence for those aged 15 to 20 (16 to 21 in Scotland) is detention in a young offender institution. The Government encourages greater private sector involvement in the prison system of England and Wales; for example, four prisons are now managed by private contractors.

III. Answer the questions based on the content of the text.

1. The legal system of Great Britain consists of...

a) prevention policy

b) prison services

c) prosecution, police and prison services

2. The criminal justice system aims...

a) to confiscate the proceeds from serious crimes

b) to prevent and reduce crime

c) to investigate terrorist crime

3. Most of the crimes are committed...

a) in large cities and urban areas

b) in suburban area

c) in small towns and settlements

4. Minor offences are heard...

a) in the Court of Appeals

b) in lay magistrates

c) in the Supreme Court

5. To be in custody means...

a) to be released

b) to be in prison to be on probation

IV. Read the text once again and be ready to answer the questions listed below.

1. What are the main sources of law?

2. What are the aims of the criminal justice system?

3. What measures are taken to strengthen the criminal justice system?

4. Who helps the police in its work?

5. What punishment may be applied to the offender?

What are the cases when life imprisonment is applied? What is the most frequent punishment for children?

2. Complete the sentences:

1. 90% of recorded offences are directed against _______.

2. There is an acute need to maintain the balance _______.

3. Police-community liaison groups consist of ________.

4. __________ may be imposed on a convicted person.

5. The Government encourages private sector involvement in ______ .

2. You should make up a report about judicial system of the UK. Tell about the main points of it.

The Jury System is on Trial

I. Pre-reading activities:

1. Do you know what a jury system means? What are its advantages and disadvantages?

2. Can you name any alternative to it? In your opinion what is more effective a jury system or a judge?

II. Read the text. Divide it into logical parts. Give each part a title.

The jury system represents a person's fundamental right to be judged by his or her equals, that's to say, twelve men and women who come from different sections of society. It may not be a perfect system but what is the alternative? Judges come from a very narrow cross-section of society, so it would be impossible for them to represent the views of most ordinary people. And can we trust the opinion of one judge, or even two or three judges? With twelve ordinary people you should get a reasonably balanced judgment.

And it also gives ordinary citizens responsibility in their community and a real sense of contributing to society.

The jury system is expensive, and the cost is going up all the time, but do we want to live in a society where justice is decided by money? When we are making decisions about people's lives, we must do everything possible to be fair and just. Money should not be an issue in the discussion.

A final point about the jury system is that most people believe it is the best and the fairest system. And it is very important that people have faith in their system of justice.

III. Match the parts of the sentences:

1. A jury is a group of people who... - defends and prosecutes

2. A lawyer is a person who... - decide is someone is guilty or innocent

3. A fine is the money which... - trials take place

4. A court is the place where... - sentences a criminal

5. Witnesses are people who... - is paid as a punishment

6. A judge is the person who... - tell the court what they know about a crime.

VI. Find in the text some arguments for or against the certain statements.

1. Twelve men and women who come from different sections of society can get more reasonable balanced judgment than just a judge.

2. It gives ordinary citizens responsibility in their community and a real sense of contributing to society.

3. The jury system is expensive and the cost is going up all the time.

VII. Give English equivalents to the following word combinations:

основное правило человека

пустая трата денег и потеря дохода

небольшая часть общества

неуютные залы для заседаний

взвешенное решение

быть честным и справедливым

быть оштрафованным судьей

представлять точку зрения самых обычных людей

общество, в котором правосудие решается с помощью денег

VIII. One of your supports the idea of the jury system, another one is absolutely

against it. Make up a dialogue, discussing the problem.

The police and the public

T here was a time when a supposedly typical British policeman could be found in every tourist brochure for Britain. His strange-looking helmet and the fact that he did not carry a gun made him a unique symbol for tourists. The image of the friendly British 'bobby', with his fatherly manner, was also well-known within the country and was reinforced by popular television serials such as Dixon of Dock Green (Images of the police: past and present). This positive image was not a complete myth. The system of policing was based on each police officer having his own 'beat', a particular neighbourhood which it was his duty to patrol. He usually did this on foot or sometimes by bicycle. The local bobby was a familiar figure on the streets, a reassur­ing presence that people felt they could trust absolutely.

In the 1960s the situation began to change in two ways. First, in response to an increasingly motorized society, and therefore increas­ingly motorized crime, the police themselves started patrolling in cars. As a result, individual police officers became remote figures and stopped being the familiar faces that they once were. A sign of this change was the new television police drama, Z Cars. This pro­gramme showed police officers as people with real problems and failings who did not always behave in the conventionally polite and reassuring manner. Some police were relieved to be presented as ordinary human beings. But the comparatively negative image of the police which this programme portrayed caused uproar and several senior police officials complained to the BBC about it! At the same time, the police found themselves having to deal increasingly with public demonstrations and with the activities of a generation who had no experience of war and therefore no obvious enemy-figure on which to focus their youthful feelings of rebellion. These young people started to see the police as the symbol of everything they disliked about society. Police officers were no longer known as 'bobbies' but became the 'fuzz' or the 'cops' or the pigs'.

Since the middle years of the twentieth century, the police in Britain have lost much of their positive image. A child who is lost is still advised to find a police officer, but the sight of one no longer creates a general feeling of reassurance. In the 1980s there were a large number of cases in which il was found that police officers had lied and cheated in order to get people convicted of crimes (o The Stefan Kizsko case). As a result, trust in the honesty and incorruptibility of the police has declined.

Nevertheless, there is still a great deal of public sympathy for the police. It is felt that they are doing an increasingly difficult job under difficult circumstances. The assumption that their role is to serve the public rather than to be agents of the government persists. Police officers often still address members of the public as 'sir' or 'madam'. Senior officers think it is important for the police to establish a relationship with local people, and the phrase 'community policing' is now fashionable. Some police have even started to patrol on foot again. Generally speaking, the relationship between police and public in Britain compares quite favourably with that in some other European countries. British police still do not carry guns in the course of normal duty (although all police stations have a store of weapons).

Crime and criminal procedure

There is a widespread feeling among the British public that crime is increasing. Figures on this matter are notoriously difficult to evalu­ate, however. One reason for this is that not all actual crimes are necessarily reported. Official figures suggest that the crime of rape increased by more than 50% between 1988 and 1992. But these figures may represent an increase in the number of victims willing to report rape rather than a real increase in cases of rape.

Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that in the last quarter of the twentieth century, the number of crimes went up ( Is crime increasing in Britain?). And the fear of crime seems to have increased a lot. This has gone together with a lack of confidence in the ability of the police to catch criminals. In the early 1990s private security firms were one of the fastest-growing businesses in the country. Another response to the perceived situation has been the growth of Neighbourhood Watch schemes. They attempt to educate people in crime prevention and to encourage the people of a particular neighbourhood to look out for anything suspicious. In 1994 the government was even con­sidering helping members of these schemes to organize patrols.

There has also been some impatience with the rules of criminal procedure under which the police and courts have to operate. The police are not, of course, above the law. When they arrest somebody on suspicion of having committed a crime, they have to follow certain procedures. For example, unless they obtain special permission, they arc not allowed to detain a person for more than twenty-four hours without formally charging that person with having committed a crime. Even after they have charged somebody, they need permission to remand that person in custody (i.e. to keep him or her in prison) until the case is heard in court. In 1994 public concern about crim­inals 'getting away with it' led the government to make one very controversial change in the law.

*****

'You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but what you say may be given in evidence'. These words are well-known to almost everybody in Britain. They have been heard in thousands of police dramas on television. For a long time they fanned what is tech­nically known as the caution, which must be read out to an arrested person in order to make the arrest legal. But, in 1994, the British gov­ernment decided that the 'right to silence' contained in the caution made things too easy for criminals. This right meant that the refusal of an arrested person 10 answer police questions could not be used as part of the evidence against him or her. Now, however, it can.

To accord with the new law, the words of the caution have had to be changed. The new formula is: 'You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial'.

Civil liberties groups in Britain are angry about this change. They say that many arrested people find it too difficult to understand and that it is not fair to encourage people to defend themselves immediately against charges about which they do not yet know the details. They are also afraid it encourages false confessions.

*****