Systems of law

Every independent country has its own legal system. The systems vary according to each country's social traditions and form of government. But most systems can be classed as either (1) a common-law system or (2) a civil-law system. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, and other English-speaking countries have a common-law system. Most other countries have a civil-law system. Many countries combine features of both systems.

Common-law systems are based largely on case law – that is, on court decisions. English common law developed from the rules and principles that judges traditionally followed in deciding court cases. Judges based their decisions on legal precedents – that is, on earlier court rulings in similar cases. The common law thus came to be law made by judges. England – and the other common-law countries--have kept these principles almost unchanged. The United States, Canada, and other countries that were colonized by England based their national legal systems on the common law. However, the lawmaking role of legislatures in these countries has increased greatly during the 1900's. For example, the United States Congress has made major changes in American contract and property law.

Civil-law systems are based mainly on statutes (legislative acts). The majority of civil-law countries have assembled their statutes into one or more carefully organized collections called codes.

In civil-law countries, which include France and Mexico, the statutes, rather than the courts, provide the final answer to any question of law. Judges may refer to precedents in making their decisions. But they must base every decision on a particular statute and not on precedent alone.

Other systems.Many countries have patterned their legal system after both civil law and common law. For example, Japan and most Latin-American nations have assembled all their private law into a code. But public law in these countries has been greatly influenced by common-law principles, especially those that guarantee the rights and liberties of the people.

Ex. 44 Discussion. “Justice and law are not always the same”. What does this comment mean? Do you agree? Why (not)?

Courts and trials Criminal proceedings

Ex. 45 Put the following stages of criminal proceeding in the chronological order:

A.Detention

An arrested person must be taken to a police station as soon as practicable after arrest. The suspect has a right to speak to an independent solicitor free of charge and to have a relative or other named person told of his or her arrest. The length of time a suspect is held in police custody before charge is strictly regulated.

B.Arrest

The police have wide powers to arrest people suspected of having committed an offence with or without a warrant issued by a court. For serious offences, known as “arrestable offences”, a suspect can be arrested without a warrant.

C. Prosecution

After reviewing evidence collected by the police during investigation, the prosecution service decides whether a prosecution should be brought. Decision are reached by applying two criteria – whether there is enough reliable evidence, and whether the public interest requires prosecution. Only cases which meet both these criteria are prosecuted.

D. Appeals

A person convicted by court may appeal to a court of higher division against the sentence or against both the sentence and the conviction. The court may review the decision of a lower court and if it is minded to quash the original sentence, impose in its place any sentence which the original sentencing court had the power to impose.

E. Charging

Once there is sufficient evidence, the police have to decide whether a detained person should be charged with the offence. If there is insufficient evidence, the person may be released on bail. If charged with an offence, a person may be kept in custody if there is a risk that he or she might fail to appear in court or might interfere with the administration of justice. When no such considerations apply, the person must be released on or without bail.