Modul_3_OON

6. Расскажите о системе судов в Российской федерации, используя схему из упражнения

5.

Unit 3

COURT HEARING

1. Работа в парах. Посмотрите на схему зала судебных заседаний. Определите, где располагаются участники судебного разбирательства.

2.Прочитайте определения и догадайтесь, о каких словах из упражнения 1 идет речь.

1.A lawyer empowered to prosecute cases on behalf of a government and its people.

2.A public officer chosen or elected to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice; one who controls the proceedings in a courtroom and decides questions of law or discretion.

3.Officer of some courts whose duties include keeping order in the courtroom and guarding prisoners or jurors in deliberation.

4.Persons selected according to law and sworn to inquire into and declare a verdict on matters of fact.

5.An officer of the court whose responsibilities include maintaining the records of a court. Another duty is to swear in witnesses, jurors, and grand jurors.

6.One who gives evidence in a cause before a court and who attests or swears to facts or gives or bears testimony under oath.

7.The party against which an action is brought.

8.A lawyer that pleads in another's behalf.

3.Расскажите об участниках судебного заседания, их расположении в зале суда, используя упражнения 1 и 2. Используйте предлоги из рамки.

4. Прочитайте статью репортера газеты Daily Mail и ответьте на вопросы. confidence – доверие, уверенность

Master of the Rolls – глава государственного архива, член Высокого суда правосудия, председатель Апелляционного суда

transparency – прозрачность

engagement – включение, соприкосновение judgment - (судебное) решение, приговор perspective – перспектива

equivalent – эквивалент

undermine – подрывать, расшатывать firm – непреклонный, решительный tentative – предварительный

broadcast – передавать по телевидению back – поддерживать, подкреплять advent – наступление (эпохи, события) to rush out – спешить

unobtrusively – малозаметный

Showing court cases on TV could increase confidence in legal system, claims top

16

judge

By Daily Mail Reporter

"Showing key court cases on television could help to increase confidence in the legal system" the top civil judge in England and Wales has claimed.

Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger said the move would need to be looked at "very carefully" but could increase confidence in the system, transparency and engagement.

The Supreme Court already televises its judgments, he said, 'but from a public interest perspective might there not be an argument now for its hearings, and some hearings of the Court of Appeal, being televised on some equivalent of the Parliament Channel, or via the BBC iPlayer'.

'If we wish to increase public confidence in the justice system, transparency and engagement, there is undoubtedly something to be said for televising some hearings, provided that there were proper safeguards to ensure that this increased access did not undermine the proper administration of justice'.

'Such an idea would have to be looked at very carefully, and it would not be sensible for me to try and make any firm suggestions'.

'But, if broadcasting of court proceedings does go ahead, I think it would be right to make two points, even at this tentative stage.

'First, the judge or judges hearing the case concerned would have to have full rights of veto over what could be broadcast; secondly, I would be very chary indeed about the notion of witness actions or criminal trials being broadcast - in each case for obvious reasons.'

Lord Neuberger also backed the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge's provisional decision to allow the use of Twitter in courts.

'It seems to me that, subject again to proper safeguard, the advent of court tweeting should be accepted, provided of course that the tweeting does not interfere with the hearing,' he said.

'Why force a journalist or a member of the public to rush out of court in order to telephone or text the contents of his notes written in court, when he can tweet as unobtrusively as he can write?

'It seems to me, in principle, that tweeting is an excellent way to inform and engage interested members of the public, as well as the legal profession.'

But he joked: 'Whatever the outcome of the consultation, I doubt however that we will see the development of tweeting from the bench.'

1.What is the essential idea of the article?

2.What suggestions are made by Lord Neuberger about televising trials?

3.Is he for or against broadcasting trials?

What do you think?

1.Is it a good idea to televise trials?

2.What are bad and good points about these shows?

5.Разделитесь на две группы: те, кто выступает в защиту телевизионных судебных процессов, и те, кто против. В группах напишите аргументы «за» или «против». Назначьте в каждой группе студента, который озвучит ваши доводы. Постарайтесь переубедить своих оппонентов или выработать единую точку зрения по данному вопросу.

6.Прочитайте выдержку из доклада, сделанного Международной комиссией юристов (ICJ), о проблемах в сфере судебной власти в России. На английском языке кратко расскажите о том, что вы узнали.

17

THE JUDICIARY IN PRACTICE: PROBLEMS OF INDEPENDENCE

AND EFFECTIVENESS

The judiciary in Russia seems to be struggling with its institutional past and long-standing legal culture. Some positive reforms have been instituted, but more far-reaching reforms are needed. Yet there is a near-absence of open public discussion on reforms or a clear plan for carrying reform forward.

The International Commission of Jurists undertook a five-day research mission to Moscow from 20 to 24 June 2010 to analyze judicial reform in the Russian Federation (RF) and to assess the progress made so far and the problems that remain. The outcome of this research was the report aimed to shed light on certain aspects of judicial independence and to suggest solutions to address some of these long-standing issues.

Section IV of this report considers the practical matters that affect the independence of the judiciary. The following problems are described:

Undue influence on judges. Judges were said to be often directly instructed on how to resolve a case. If the expectations are not met, a decision may be revoked and a judge may face disciplinary measures due to a poor record, pushing justice to the sidelines.

Procuratura and Law Enforcement. The procuratura is said to influence the judiciary, contrary to the requirement of strict respect of the independence and the impartiality of judges. Generally more weight is given to the prosecution’s opinion than to that of the defence, while judges who are not attentive enough to the demands of the prosecution may face consequences including dismissals. More generally, the pressure from law enforcement interests remains strong and laws have recently been adopted that strengthen the FSB.

Corruption. Not only are courts subject to political pressure, there are allegations that some judges provide “services” to organizations and individuals, for instance by taking bribes for expedited consideration of cases or for making particular decisions.

Factors influencing the attitudes and mindset of judges. Problems of the judiciary are rooted in the attitudes of judges for whom it is difficult to recognize the priority of human rights and interests of an individual. Many judges see themselves as agents of the state whose main goal is to protect its interests.

Public trust and civil society. There is a clear lack of public trust in the fairness and effectiveness of the justice system, as judges are often viewed as servants of the state and defenders of its interests.

7. Работа в парах. Со своим партнерам обсудите выдержку из доклада и составьте предложения по решению проблем, обозначенных в докладе из упражнения 6.

18

Unit 4

JUDICIAL BRANCH OF AMERICA

1. Прочитайте текст и найдите ответы на следующие вопросы:

What is the judicial system in the United States made of? Why are there two court systems in the United States? Do both court systems have similar jurisdictions?

TEXT 4

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES

The judicial system in the United States is unique insofar as it is actually made up of two different court systems: the federal court system and the state court systems. While each court system is responsible for hearing certain types of cases, neither is completely independent of the other, and the systems often interact. Furthermore, solving legal disputes and vindicating legal rights are key goals of both court systems.

The U.S. Constitution created a governmental structure for the United States known as federalism. Federalism refers to a sharing of powers between the national government and the state governments. The Constitution gives certain powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states. Therefore, while the Constitution states that the federal government is supreme with regard to those powers expressly or implicitly delegated to it, the states remain supreme in matters reserved to them. This supremacy of each government in its own sphere is known as separate sovereignty, meaning each government is sovereign in its own right.

Both the federal and state governments need their own court systems to apply and interpret their laws. Furthermore, both the federal and state constitutions attempt to do this by specifically spelling out the jurisdiction of their respective court systems.

For example, since the Constitution gives Congress sole authority to make uniform laws concerning bankruptcies, a state court would lack jurisdiction in this matter. Likewise, since the Constitution does not give the federal government authority in most matters concerning the regulation of the family, a federal court would lack jurisdiction in a divorce case. This is why there are two separate court systems in America. The federal court system deals with issues of law relating to those powers expressly or implicitly granted to it by the U.S. Constitution, while the state court systems deal with issues of law relating to those matters that the U.S. Constitution did not give to the federal government or explicitly deny to the states.

2. Закончите предложения в соответствии с текстом, выбрав один из вариантов.

1.The judicial system of the US is made of __________________

a)the federal court system

b)the state court system

c)the federal court system and the state court systems

2.Key goals of both court systems are ______________________

a)punishing offenders for committing crimes and resolving civil disputes

b)making laws and introducing then into force

c)solving legal disputes and vindicating legal rights

3.The U.S. Constitution created a governmental structure known as __________________

a)federalism

b)separation of powers

c)separate sovereignty

19

4.This supremacy of each government in its own sphere is known ____________________

a)federalism

b)separation of powers

c)separate sovereignty

5.Both federal and state court systems have _________________

a)a right to resolve the same legal issues

b)a right to transfer any case from any federal court to any state court

c)a right to resolve legal issues within the jurisdiction of the respective court systems

3. Прочитайте и переведите текст.

TEXT 5

GLOSSARY

to hold office – занимать пост, занимать должность to attach – прикреплять

a trial court – суд первой инстанции a circuit – округ, район, участок

a panel – коллегия

an apex – высшая точка, вершина a justice – судья

to petition – обращаться с петицией, подавать прошение, ходатайствовать

tax deficiency – недоплата налога (ситуация, при которой начисленная и уплаченная сумма налога меньше реально подлежащей уплате суммы)

benefit – пенсия, (страховое) пособие

Uniform Code of Military Justice - Унифицированный военный кодекс (cобрание законов, регулирующих деятельность, права и обязанности военнослужащих Вооруженных сил США)

Federal Court System

The term “federal court” can actually refer to one of two types of courts. The first type of court is what is known as an Article III court. These courts get their name from the fact that they derive their power from Article III of the Constitution. These courts include (1) the U.S. District Courts, (2) the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, and (3) the U.S. Supreme Court. They also include two special courts:

(a) the U.S. Court of Claims and (b) the U.S. Court of International Trade. These courts are special because, unlike the other courts, they are not courts of general jurisdiction. Courts of general jurisdiction can hear almost any case. All judges of Article III courts are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate and hold office during good behavior.

The second type of court also is established by Congress. These courts are (1) magistrate courts, (2) bankruptcy courts, (3) the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, (4) the U.S. Tax Court, and (5) the U.S. Court of Veterans' Appeals. The judges of these courts are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. They hold office for a set number of years, usually about 15.

Magistrate and bankruptcy courts are attached to each U.S. District Court. The U.S. Court of Military Appeals, U.S. Tax Court, and U.S. Court of Veterans' Appeals are called Article I or legislative courts.

U.S. District Courts

There are 94 U.S. District Courts in the United States. Every state has at least one district court, and some large states, such as California, have as many as four. Each district court has between 2 and 28 judges. The U.S. District Courts are trial courts, or courts of original jurisdiction. This means that most federal cases begin here. U.S. District Courts hear both civil and criminal cases. In many cases, the judge determines issues of law, while the jury (or judge sitting without a jury) determines findings of fact.

U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal

There are 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal in the United States. These courts are divided into

20