Vocabulary
1. a`ccomplice сообщник, соучастник (преступления)
2. to allege ссылаться (в оправдание, в доказательство)
3. a`ppellant апеллирующий
4. bail залог, поручительство
5. bailiff судебный пристав
6. bar адвокатура
7. barrister барристер; адвокат, имеющий право выступать в высших судах
8. to
charge
with
о
9. custody охрана; арест; take into ~ арестовать
10.de`fendant обвиняемый, ответчик
11.evidence улика, доказательство, свидетельские показания
12.fine пеня, штраф
13.forgery подделка
14.to handle legal matters
15.to inquire into расследовать
16 legal rules правовые нормы, принципы
17..liti`gation тяжба, судебный процесс
18.plaintiff истец
19.prison тюрьма
20.prisoner заключенный
21.prosecute преследовать судебным порядком
22.prosecutor истец; обвинитель; public p. прокурор
23.proceed привлекать к суду, возбуждать процесс
24.proceedings процессуальное действие, процесс, судопроизводство
25.sentence приговор; to pass a ~ upon smb. выносить приговор кому-л.
26.to sentence осуждать, приговаривать to serve one’s ~ отбывать срок наказания
27.solicitor солиситор стряпчий; юрисконсульт
28.witness-box место для дачи свидетельских показаний
29.wills завещания
30.witness свидетель
Task 1. Read the text.
The Court system of England and Wales
The most common type of law court in England and Wales is the Magistrates’ court. There are 700 magistrates’ courts and about 30000 magistrates.
More serious criminal cases then go to the Crown Court, which has 90 branches in different towns and cities. Civil cases (ex. divorce or bankruptcy cases) are dealt with in County courts.
Appeals are heard by higher courts. For example, appeals from magistrates’ courts are heard in the Crown Court, unless they are appeals on points of law. The highest court of appeal in England and Wales is the House of Lords. (Scotland has its own High Court in Edinburgh, which hears all appeals from Scottish courts.) Certain cases may be referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In addition, individuals have made the British Government change its practices in a number of areas as a result of petitions to the European Court of Human Rights.
The legal system also includes juvenile courts (which deal with offenders under seventeen) and coroners’ courts (which investigate violent, sudden or unnatural deaths). There are administrative tribunals which make quick, cheap and fair decisions with much less formality. Tribunals deal with professional standards, disputes between individuals, and disputes between individuals and government departments.
The Crown Courts deal exclusively with criminal matters, the County Courts with civil. A criminal case usually begins in a magistrates Court.
Task 2. Find in the text the English equivalents for the words below.
- общее право
- решение суда
- уголовный кодекс
- гражданский кодекс
- мировой судья
- Суд Короны
- гражданское дело
- суды графств
- Европейский суд по правам человека
- правовая система
- суд по делам несовершеннолетних
- правонарушитель
- насильственная смерть
- уголовное дело
Task 3. Examine the chart and the following text into English.
The legal system in England and Wales
T
he
House of Lords
Court of Appeal
1-3
judges, no jury
Criminal division Civil division
High Court 13 judges, no jury
Queen’s Bench Division Chancery Division Family Division
Crown
Court
1 judge+ jury County
Court
1 judge, no jury
Magistrates’ Court (Magistrates Court)
3 magistrates, no jury
Верховный Суд Англии и Уэльса.
Верховный суд Англии и Уэльса возглавляемый в качестве председателя лордом- канцлером, включает в себя три самостоятельных судебных учреждения- Апелляционный суд, Высокий суд и суд Короны. Апелляционный суд состоит из гражданского и уголовного отделений и рассматривает в коллегиях, из трех или более судей, аппеляции на постановления других судов. В него входят лорд-канцлер, бывшие лорды- канцлеры. Лорд- главный судья (возглавляет гражданское отделение) и другие высшие судебные деятели, а также до 18-ти лордов- апелляционных судей. Высокий суд имеет 3 отделения- королевской скамьи, канцлерское и семейное. В него входят лорд-канцлер и другие высшие судебные деятели, а также до 80 рядовых судей. Отделение королевской скамьи занимается главным образом, рассмотрением по первой инстанции наиболее сложных гражданских дел и апелляций на приговоры Магистратских судов по уголовным делам. На правах составных частей отделения королевской скамьи самостоятельно функционирует суд Адмиралтейства, в котором рассматриваются споры по морским перевозкам, столкновениям кораблей и возмещению связанных с этим убытков, и Коммерческий суд, которому подсудны многие споры торгового характера. Канцлерское отделение рассматривает, в качестве суда первой инстанции, гражданские дела, связанные с управлением имуществом, доверительной собственностью, деятельностью компаний, банкротствами и др. Разбирательство дел по первой инстанции в отделениях Высокого суда проводится судьями единолично, рассмотрение апелляций- обычно в коллегиях из двух или трех судей. В отделении королевской скамьи при определенных условиях дело может слушаться с участием присяжных.
Task 3. What is the most common type of law court in England and Wales? Name three other types of British courts.
Task 4. Read this classification.
Types of Legal Professions
Solicitors. There are about 50000 solicitors, a number which is rapidly increasing, and they make up by far the largest branch of the legal profession in England and Wales. They are found in every town, where they deal with all the day-to-day work of preparing legal documents for buying and selling houses, making wills,etc. Solicitors also work on court cases for their clients, prepare cases for barristers to present in the higher courts, and may represent their client in a Magistrates’ court.
Barristers. There are about 5000 barristers who defend or prosecute in the higher courts. Although solicitors and barristers work together on cases, barristers specialize in representing clients in court and the training and career structures for the two types of lawyer are quite separate. In court, barristers wear wigs and gowns in keeping with the extreme formality of the proceedings. The highest level of barristers has the title QC (Queen’s Counsel)
Judges. There are a few hundred judges, trained as barristers, who preside in more serious cases. There is no separate training for judges.
Jury. A jury consist of twelve people (“jurors”), who are ordinary people chosen at random from the Electoral Register (the list of people who can vote in elections). The jury listen to the evidence given in court in certain criminal cases and decide whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. If the person is found guilty, the punishment is passed by the presiding judge. Juries are rarely used in civil cases.
Magistrates. There are about 30000 magistrates (Justices of the Peace or JPs), who judge cases in the lower courts. They are usually unpaid and have no formal legal qualifications, but they are respectable people who are given some training.
Coroners. Coroners have medical or legal training (or both), and inquire into violent or unnatural deaths.
Clerks of the Court. Clerks look after administrative and legal matters in the courtroom.
Task 5. Choose the correct definition for each legal profession mentioned in the text.
an officer acting as a judge in the lower courts
a public official with authority to hear and decide cases in a law court
a group of people who swear to give a true decision on issues of in a law court
an official who investigates the case of any death thought to be violent or unnatural causes
a lawyer who has the right to speak and argue in higher law courts
a lawyer who prepares legal documents, advises clients on legal and speaks for them in lower law courts.
Task 6. Before reading the following text match given terms and expressions with the correct translation, and then find them in the text.
1. the four inns of Court 2. to present cases in higher courts 3. drawing up of documents 4. the everyday junior work 5. to sit exams 6. association with a senior barrister 7. to “be called to the bar” 8. to “take silk” 9.to live a more rarefied existence 10.to hire smb. 11. the experts on general principles of the law 12.to acquire the special skill of eloquence in public speaking
13. the impersonal majesty of the law 14.the retiring age 15.to get a very high salary
a. 4 английские школы подготовки барристеров b. составление, оформление документов
c.сдавать экзамены d.нанимать кого-либо e.вести более утонченный образ жизни
f.призываться, приниматься в ассоциацию адвокатов g.приобретать специальные навыки и умения красноречия в ораторском искусстве h.совместная работа со старшим барристером
i.ежедневная вспомогательная работа j.беспристрастное величие закона \ права k.получать очень высокую заработную плату l.стать королевским адвокатом m.специалисты высокого класса по общим правовым вопросам n.возраст, установленный для выхода в отставку o. представлять, вести дела в вышестоящих судах
Task 7. Read the text.
Solicitors and Barristers
There are two distinct kinds of lawyer in Britain. One of these is a solicitor. Everybody who needs a lawyer has to go to one of these. They handle most legal matters for their clients, including the drawing up documents (such as wills, matrimonial matters: divorce papers and contracts), communicating with other parties, and presenting their clients’ cases in Magistrates’ Courts, the lowest courts. The solicitor deals with petty crimes and prepares the case and the evidence. He actually speaks in Court for you. However, only since 1994 have solicitors been allowed to present cases in higher courts. If the trial is to be heard in one of these, the solicitor normally hires the services of the other kind of lawyer- a barrister. The only function of barristers is to present cases in court.
The training of the two kinds of lawyer is very different. All solicitors have to pass the Law Society exam. They study for this exam while “articled” to established firms of solicitors where they do much of the everyday junior work until they are qualified.
Barristers have to attend one of the four Inns of Court in London. These ancient institutions are modeled somewhat on Oxbridge colleges. For example, although there are some lectures, the only attendance requirement is to eat dinner there on a certain number of evenings each term. After four years, the trainee barristers then sit exams. If they pass, they are called “the bar” and are recognized as barristers. However, they are still not allowed to present a case in a crown court. They can only do this after several more years of association with a senior barrister, after which the most able of them apply to “take silk”. Those whose applications are accepted can put the letters QC (Queen’s Counsel) after their names.
Neither kind of lawyer needs a university qualification. The vast majority of barristers and most solicitors do in fact go to university, but they do not necessarily study law there. This arrangement is typically British.
The different styles of training reflect the different worlds that the two kinds of lawyer live in, and also the different skills that they develop. Solicitors have to deal with the realities of the every day world and its problems. Most of their work is done away from the courts. They often become experts in the details of particular areas of the law. Barristers, on the other hand, live a more rarefied existence. For one thing, they tend to come from the upper strata of society. Furthermore, their protection from everyday realities is increased by certain legal rules. For example, they are not supposed to talk to any of their clients, or to their client’s witnesses, except in the presence of the solicitor who has hired them. They are experts on general principles of the law rather than on details, and they acquire the special skill of eloquence in public speaking. When they present a case in court, they, like judges, put on the archaic gown and wig which, it is supposed, emphasize the impersonal majesty of the law.
It is exclusively from the ranks of barristers that judges are appointed. Once they have been appointed, it is almost impossible for them to be dismissed. The only way that this can be done is by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and this is something that has never happened. Moreover, their retiring age is later than in most other occupations. They also get very high salaries. These things are considered necessary in order to ensure their independence from interference, by the state or any other party. However, the result of their background and their absolute security in their jobs is that, although they are often people of great learning and intelligence, some judges appear to have difficulty understanding the problems and circumstances of ordinary people, and to be out of step with general public opinion.
Task 8. Read the international words and guess their meaning. Mind the stress.
`system
`function
`interview
`client
`barrister
`typically
inter`ference person`nel
re`sult
character`ristic
associ`ation
uni`versity
ar`chaic [a:`keiik]
concen`tration
so`licitor
indi`vidual
in`telligence
reso`lution `experts
`details
`absolute
`special
`Parliament
Task 9. Answer the questions.
1. What are the two kinds of lawyers in England?
2. What kind of problems does a solicitor deal with?
3. How does a lawyer qualify as a solicitor?
4. What are barristers experts in?
5. When must you have a barrister?
6. How do you qualify as a barrister?
7. When can a barrister be called to the Bar?
Task 10. Retell the text. (One student retells and the other translates.)
Task 11. Read the text and answer the questions.
In Britain, the vast majority of judges (that is the people who decide what should be done with people who commit crimes) are unpaid. They are called “Magistrates”, or “Justices of the Peace”(JPs). They are ordinary citizens who are selected not because they have any legal training but because they have “sound common sense” and understand their fellow human beings. They give up time voluntary.
A small proportion of judges are not Magistrates. They are called “High Court Judges” and they deal with the most serious crimes, such as those for which the criminal might be sent to prison for more than a year. High Court Judges, unlike Magistrates, are paid salaries by the State and have considerable legal training.
Magistrates are selected by special committees in every town and district. Nobody, not even the Magistrates themselves, knows who is on the special committee in their area. The committee tries to draw Magistrates from as wide a variety of professions and social classes as possible.
1. What kind of people are Magistrates?
2. Why are they selected?
3.Who selects Magistrates and what is unusual about the system?
Task 12. Complete the following sentences with the words from the box.
|
Court clerk; bailiff; appellant; defendant; prosecutor; solicitor; judge; plaintiff; prison officer; sheriff; witness; barrister |
1. A court officer who maintains order in the courtroom and is responsible for custody of the jury is …
2. A lawyer who speaks in a law court, either for or against a case is … .
3. A person against whom legal action is brought is … .
4. A person who gives evidence at a trial is … .
5. A lawyer who advises on legal matters and helps with wills, house sales and other legal matters is… .
6. The party that requests an appeal is … .
7. A person appointed to hear and try cases in a court of law is … .
8. Men or women who look after prisoners in prison are called ... .
9. The chief executive and administrative officer of a country, chosen by popular election is… .
10. The party bringing the suit is called… .
11. The officer, who sits right below the judge, keeps track of all documents and exhibits and notes down important events in the trial is… .
12. The public officer in each county who is a lawyer and who represents the interests of the state is … .
Task 13. Match each word or expression on the left with the correct definition on the right.
a) punishment 1.allowed to remain free but only under supervision
b) forgery 2. the prison sentence or fine given to a criminal
c) put on probation 3. signing a check or some other document with another person’s name
d) a fine 4. punishment in the form of money you have to pay the Court
e) charged with 5. to be accused by the police in court
f) defamation 6. a request to a higher court to reexamine and change the judgment of
a previous court hearing
g) custody 7. something allowing a person who has been charged with a crime to
remain free until the date of the next court hearing
h
i) appellant 9.the party that is accused in court of a crime or a civil offence
j) bail 10. the Tort of saying, or writing something which is untrue and which
harms another person’s good name
k) appeal 11. an agreement between two or more people which is binding in law
l) civil law 12. the party that requests an Appeal
m) defendant 13. being held at a police station or in prison
n) contact 14. money paid by one party of a legal action to compensate the other
party for loss or injury
Task 14. Complete the following sentences with the correct names of courts.
The most common type of Law Court in Great Britain is the … court. More serious criminal cases then go to … court. Civil cases are dealt with in … courts. Appeals are heard by … courts. The highest court of appeal in England and Wales is …. The legal system also includes … courts (which deal with offenders under seventeen) and … courts (which investigate violent, sudden or unnatural deaths.)
If a person in Britain has a legal problem, he will go and see a …. If you want to … your debts, your case will be heard in the County Court.
Task 15. Give definitions of the following words and expressions.
To allege, forgery, to put on probation, witness-box, accomplice, appeal, bankruptcy, a goal, litigation, damages.
Task 16. Prepare a report about legal professions in Kazakhstan.
Task 17.. Work in pairs and discuss the following.
Which courts do you think would deal with:
a bank robbery?
a divorce case?
a burglary committed by a fifteen-year- old?
a drowning?
A case of driving too fast?
СРСП 5.
Task 1. Read the text. This text comes from a handbook on jury service for US citizens.
Selection of the Trial Jury
Your name was selected at random from voter registration records and placed on a list of potential jurors. Next, your answers to the Questionnaire for Jurors were evaluated to make sure that you were eligible for jury service and were not exempt from service. To be eligible, you must be over 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a resident of the country in which you are to serve as a juror, able to communicate in the English language and if you have been convicted of a felony, you must have had your civil rights restored. The first step in the selection of the trial jury is the selection of a “jury panel». When you are selected for a jury panel you will be directed to report. The judge assigned to that case will tell you about the case and will introduce the lawyers and the people involved in the case. You will also take an oath, by which you promise to answer all questions truthfully. Following this explanation of the case and the taking of the oath, the judge and the lawyers will question you and the other members of the panel to find out if you have any personal interest in it, or any feelings that might make it hard for you to be impartial. This process of questioning is called VOIR DIRE, a phrase meaning “to speak the truth”. Many of the questions the judge and lawyers ask you during voir dire may seem very personal to you, but you should answer them completely and honestly. During VOIR DIRE the lawyers may ask the judge to excuse you or another member of panel from sitting on the jury for this particular case. This is called CHALLENGING A JUROR. There are two types of challenges. The first is called a CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, which means that the lawyer has a specific reason for thinking that the juror would not be able to be impartial. For example, the case may involve the theft of a car. If one of the jurors has had a car stolen and still feels angry or upset about it, the lawyer for the person accused of the theft could ask that the juror be excused for that reason. The second type of challenge is called a PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, which means that the lawyer does not have to state a reason for asking that the juror be excused. Like challenges for cause, peremptory challenges are designed to allow lawyers to do their best to assure that their clients will have a fair trial. Unlike challenges for cause, however, the number of peremptory challenges is limited. Please try not to take offence if you are excused from serving on a particular jury. The lawyer who challenges you is not suggesting that you lack ability or honesty, merely that there is some doubt about your impartiality because of the circumstances of the particular case and your past experiences. If you are excused, you will either return to the juror waiting area and wait to be called for another panel or will be excused from service, depending on the local procedures in the county in which you live. Depending on the kind of case, there will be either six or twelve jurors.
Juror’s oath: “I do solemnity, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.”
Task 2.Give Kazakh (Russian) equivalents for the following words and translate the definitions into Kazakh (Russian)
Case- any proceeding, action, cause, lawsuit or controversy initiated through the court system by filing a complaint, petition or information.
Witness- person who testifies under oath in court regarding what was seen, heard or otherwise observed.
Trial- the presentation of evidence in court to a trier of facts who applies the applicable law to those facts and then decides the case.
Evidence- a form of proof legally presented at a trial through witnesses, records, documents.
Task 3. Paraphrase the following words and expressions and explain their meanings.
- impartial decision;
- at random
- to be eligible
- to exempt from jury service
- to take an oath-
- to be impartial
- voir dire
- peremptory challenge
- to state a reason –
- to take offence
Task 3. Answer the questions.
1. What is the job of a juror?
2. What is the job of a judge?
3. What requirements should one meet to be eligible for jury service?
4. What are the reasons for a person to be excused from jury service?
5. What is the aim of VOIR DIRE?
6. What is CHALLENGING A JUROR?
7. What are the types of challenge?
Task 4. Find in the English-Kazakh (Russian) Law dictionary the meanings of the following words: a) litigation, civil ~, local ~, ~ expenses; b) lawsuit, to be cast in ~, party to a ~; c) suit, to win a ~, to mount a ~, to bring a ~; d) trial, open-court ~, to conduct a ~, to bring to ~, to face ~, civil `, criminal ~; e) cause, legal~, major\ minor ~, side in a ~, f) controversy, legal ~, to decide a ~; g) process, investigation ~; h) proceeding(s), to take criminal ~, civil ~, forfeiture ~;
Task 5. Read the text.
Kinds of Cases
Civil Cases. Civil cases are usually disputes between or among private citizens, corporations, governments, government agencies, and other organizations. Most often, the party bringing the suit is asking for money damages for some wrong that has been done. For example, a tenant may sue a landlord for failure to fix a leaky roof, or a landlord may sue a tenant for failure to pay rent. The party bringing the suit is called the plaintiff; the party being sued is called the defendant. There may be many plaintiffs or many defendants in the same case.
The plaintiff starts the lawsuit by filing a paper called a complaint, in which the case against the defendant is stated. The next paper filed is usually the answer, in which the defendant disputes what the plaintiff has said in the complaint. The defendant may also feel that there has been a wrong committed by the plaintiff, in which case a counterclaim will be filed along with the answer. It is up to the plaintiff to prove the case against the defendant. In each civil case the judge tells the jury the extent to which the plaintiff must prove the case. This is called the plaintiff’s burden of proof, a burden that the plaintiff must meet in order to win. In most civil cases the plaintiff’s burden is to prove the case by preponderance of evidence, that is, that the plaintiff’s version of what happened in the case is more probably true than not true. Jury verdicts do not need to be unanimous in civil cases. Only ten jurors need to agree upon a verdict if there are six jurors.
Criminal cases. A criminal case is brought by the state or by a city or county against a person or persons accused of having committed a crime. The state, city, or county is called the plaintiff; the accused person is called the defendant. The charge against the defendant is called an information or a complaint. The defendant has pleaded not guilty and you should presume the defendant’s innocence throughout the entire trial unless the plaintiff proves the defendant guilty. The plaintiff’s burden of proof is greater in a criminal case than in a civil case. In each criminal case you hear the judge will tell you all the elements of the crime that the plaintiff must prove; the plaintiff must prove each of these elements beyond reasonable doubt before the defendant can be found guilty. In criminal cases the verdict must be unanimous, that is, all jurors must agree that the defendant is guilty in order to overcome the presumption of innocence.
Task 6. Give Kazakh (Russian) equivalents for the following words and translate the definitions into Kazakh (Russian).
Defendant - (crim.) person charged with a crime; (civ.) person or entity against whom a civil action is brought
Action- proceeding taken in court synonymous to case, suit, lawsuit.
Preponderance of evidence means that the weight of evidence presented by one side convincing to the trier of facts than the evidence presented by the opposing side.
Plaintiff- the party who begins an action, complains or sues.
Counterclaim- claim presented by a defendant in opposition to the claim of the plaintiff.
Complaint- (crim.) formal written charge that a person has committed a criminal offence.
(civ.) initial document filed by a plaintiff which starts the claim against the defendant.
Task 7. Give English equivalents for the following words and expressions.
- подать иск;
- начать дело;
- арендатор;
- показания (2);
- судебное разбирательство(3);
- истец;
- совершить преступление;
- признать виновным;
- заслушать показания;
- исключить из состава присяжных;
- частные лица;
- материальный ущерб;
- ответственность за ущерб;
- ответчик;
- подать иск;
- ответный иск;
- обвинен в преступлении;
- заявить о невиновности;
- единодушное решение присяжных;
- вопросы права;
- принять присягу;
Task 8. Answer the questions.
1. What is civil case?
2. Who is a plaintiff?
3. Who is a defendant?
4. What is complaint?
5. What is an answer/
6. What is a counterclaim?
7. What is a burden of proof?
8. What is a criminal case?
9. What is preponderance of evidence?
10. How many jurors are necessary to agree upon the verdict in a criminal case?
Task 9. Read the text.
Criminal Trial in England
The Author’s club, London, S.W. 1
Dear Rene,
While you were staying with us during the summer I remember you asked me a lot of questions about law in this country. I am afraid I was not able to help you much. We read in our newspapers about trials in the law courts, but few law-abiding citizens are experts on the subject.
You asked me to tell you how criminal trials in England differ from trials in Europe, and I couldn’t tell up much- except I remember that I said that in England a person accused of crime must always be supposed innocent until he has been proved guilty. Newspapers mustn’t describe the accused as “the thief” or “the murderer”; he is “accused” or “the prisoner”.
Last month I served as a member of the jury at an important criminal trial, so I learned quite a lot. I thought you’d be interested and that’s why I am writing. I am giving you only some general impressions. The newspaper reports I’m sending separately give a fairly complete account of the trial.
The prisoner was accused of robbing a bank and of wounding the night watchman who tried to stop him. He pleaded ‘Not guilty’, so the trial was a long one. We had to listen to some long speeches and a lot of evidence.
I’m over fifty and this was my first experience of serving as a juror. We’re liable for the jury service between 21 and 60, so you see I might have been called on many years ago. Of the twelve members of the jury, three were women. Two of the men were small shopkeepers, one was at motor mechanic, and another was a school teacher. I didn’t find out what the others were, but you see we were a mixed lot.
We had three stories to listen to. First was the story told by the counsel for the prosecution, then the story told by the defending counsel, and lastly the story was told by the judge, a summing up of what was said by counsel and witnesses. By ‘counsel’ I mean the barrister or barrister employed on either side.
The prosecuting counsel began by telling the court what he intended to prove by evidence. Then he called witnesses. These persons can say what they know only in answer to questions, so the examination of witnesses is very important. Every witness may be examined by the barrister who is defending the prisoner. This is the cross-examination. The judge can interfere if he thinks any of the questions are unfair. He always objects to what are called ‘leading questions’, questions that suggest answers instead of asking for information. (Perhaps you know the old example: ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’). Leading questions, however, are allowed in cross-examination.
The defending counsel then had its turn. He called new witnesses, including the man himself. These witnesses were then cross-examined by the prosecuting counsel.
The law of evidence is very strict. Every witness must, before going into the witness box, swear an oath, with his hand in the Bible, ‘to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’. A witness may tell only what he himself knows to be true. ‘Hearsay’ evidence is not allowed. If, for example, Mr. X saw a man forcing a way into a building, he can describe what he saw, and this is evidence. If he tells his wife about it, a description of what happened, given by the wife, is not evidence. She heard her husband’s story, but she herself didn’t see what happened.
When all the evidence had been given, and the examination of the witnesses was finished, counsel for both sides made further speeches. Counsel for the prosecution tried to show that, from the evidence they had heard, the jury could only find the prisoner guilty. Counsel for defense tried to show that the prisoner was nor guilty. Then the judge summed up.
There are quite a lot of people in England who think that twelve ordinary men and women are not capable of understanding properly all the evidence given in criminal trials. I had doubts about myself until I served as juror last month. I didn’t feel so doubtful now. Our judges are expert in summing up the evidence. They take notes during the trial. The judge, in the case I’m writing about, called our attention to all the important points in the evidence, and in the speeches made by counsel for both sides. He favored neither prosecution nor defence. He told us what crime the accused would be guilty of, if the evidence supplied by the prosecution was true.
The members of the jury have to decide only questions of fact. Questions of law are for the judge. So when the judge had finished his summing up, he said to us: ‘Will you please consider your verdict?’
We retired to a private room to do this. I was elected foreman (or chairman). You probably know that if the jury cannot agree they must be discharged and there is then a new trial with a fresh jury. A verdict has to be unanimous. In this case we were not long in reaching a decision. The evidence against the accused man was so strong that we had no need to discuss it for long. English law requires that the guilt of an accused man must be proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. We had no doubt at all, so when we returned to the court and I was asked: ‘Do you find the prisoner Guilty or Not Guilty?’ I gave the answer ‘Guilty’.
Here’s another interesting point about the law of evidence. The police may know quite a lot about the previous life of the accused man. They may have records to show that he is a habitual criminal, that he has often been accused of crime and proved guilty. But this information cannot be given in court until after the jury have brought in their verdict.
In this case the police records showed that the prisoner had served three terns of imprisonment foe robbery, one of them being for robbery with violence. If we had known this before we considered our verdict, and if the evidence against the man had been weak, we might have been inclined to declare him guilty, in spite if weak evidence against him.
The prisoner’s past record of crime, if he has one, is given after the verdict so that the judge may know better what sentence to pass. If the accused has never been convicted of crime, the sentence is not likely to be severe, unless the crime is one of violence. First offenders are usually treated with sympathy. If, on the other hand, the accused man has a long record of convictions, the judge will pass a more severe sentence.
There’s one more point worth mentioning. The police officers who find and arrest an accused man may appear as witness at the trial. But they appear only as witness. They have no share in the examination of the accused. There is a clear division between the forces of the law who keep order and the forces who conduct trials in the law-courts.
I’ve probably told you much that you already know, and perhaps English law is not different from French law as I think it is. But I hope you’ll find this letter interesting. You were here in summer, when the law-courts were closed. Can you make your next visit when you’ll have a chance to attend a criminal trial? We’d be very pleased to see you again.
Best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
John Churchman.
Task 10. Translate into Kazakh (Russian) the following words and expressions:
To rob a bank; to wound; liable for; evidence; cross-examination; witness; sentence; to convict; foreman; prosecution; prisoner; guilty; defence;
Task 11. Find English equivalents in the text:
Выступать в качестве присяжного; полный отчет; обвинять в…; подводить итоги; произносить клятву; признавать виновным; избирать; рецидивист; человек, преступивший закон в первый раз.
Task 12. Translate into English, using the expressions of the text.
1. Суд признал его виновным.
2. Каждый гражданин Великобритании от 21 до 60 лет может присутствовать на суде в качестве присяжного заседателя.
3. К людям, совершившим преступление в первый раз, обычно относятся с сочувствием.
4. Судья может вмешаться в допрос свидетелей.
5. Затем наступила очередь стороны защиты.
6. Обвиняемый уже отбыл три срока наказания за грабеж.
7. Если члены жюри не могут прийти к единому решению, жюри должно быть распущено.
8. Информация о прежних правонарушениях предоставляется после вынесения вердикта.
9. Наводящие вопросы не допускается.
10. Свидетели допрашиваются как обвинением, так и защитой.
Task 13.Answer the questions.
1. What was the only peculiarity of the British law that John Churchman knew before serving as a juror?
2. What is the role of the prosecuting counsel? What is the role of the defending counsel? What is the role of the jury? What is the role of the judge?
3. What is the role of the witnesses? What must every witness do before going to the witness box?
4. What is ‘hearsay’ evidence? Why is it not allowed?
5. What questions are called ‘leading questions’? When can the judge interfere in the cross- examination?
6. When can the jury be discharged? What will happen next?
7. Why are the past records of crime given after the verdict was pronounced?
8. What is the difference between a first offender and a habitual criminal? How are first offenders treated in courts?
9. Can the police officers who arrested the criminal take part in the trial? Can they participate in the examination of witnesses?
10. What questions do the members of jury have to decide?
Task 14. Questions for discussion:
1. Have you or one of your friends or relatives ever served as a member of a jury?
2. Would you like to serve as a member of the jury?
3. Do you agree that ordinary men and women are capable of understanding all the evidence property and pass a just verdict?
Task 14. Make a dialogue using the following situations.
Situation 1. Imagine two women at the supermarket, arguing about whether they should buy a black pair of shoes or a blue one. A boy, approximately sixteen years old approaches them from behind. Then one woman puts her hand into her bag and finds out that there is no purse in it. But the boy has already disappeared, so they hurry to the policeman nearby.
Situation 2. Late in the evening the officer with his dog attached to the Guggenheim Museum decided to go around and see if everything’s OK. Suddenly near the door of the museum he sees a young man dressed in all black with some very strange instruments in his hand.
Situation 3. A constable in charge of the Good Street sees the man going out of the window of one house with a picture in his hands.
Situation 4. A woman in jail refuses to say a word until her lawyer arrives. The lawyer arrives but also refuses to say a word.
Situation 5. You have bought a pair of new shoes in the shop. But when you come home, you find out that one of the hells is broken. You hurry back to the shop, but the shop assistant refuses to replace the shoes.
Task 15. Time for fun. Fill in the crossword.
|
1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
2. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
5. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
6. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
8. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
9. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
10. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
court case against someone; people, who accuse someone of a crime in a court;
a person appointed to make decisions, especially in a higher court of law;
judgment\ decision by a judge or jury;
being found guilty;
court case to judge a criminal;
lawyer, who is allowed to speak in court;
putting\ keeping in prison;
person, who sees something happening;
traces of a crime; written or spoken report at a trial;
a lawyer, who gives advice to people on legal problems.
Task 16. Learn and remember the following phrasal verbs.
TO COME – келу, жету, шешім қабылдау, күшіне ену; приходить, достигать, принимать решение, вступать в силу;
to come after – мұраға ие болу, вступать (в наследство)
to come into force; syn. to ~ into effect; to ~ operation – күшіне ену, вступать в силу
to come into an inheritance- мұраға алу, получать наследство
to come into office- жұмысқа кірісу, вступать в должность
to come of age- кәмелеттік жасқа толу, достигать совершеннолетия
to come to an agreement- келісімге келу, приходить к соглашению
to come to the book- сот міндетін атқарудан бұрын ант қабылдау, приносить присягу перед исполнением обязанностей судьи
to come within the jurisdiction- юрисдикцияға түсу, подпадать под юрисдикцию
to come within the purview of – (заңның) әрекеттеріне ілігу, подпадать под действие (закона)
Task 17. Give the English equivalents from the task above.
күшіне ену, вступать в силу; жұмысқа кірісу, вступать в должность; келісімге келу, приходить к соглашению; сот міндетін атқарудан бұрын ант қабылдау, приносить присягу перед исполнением обязанностей судьи; кәмелеттік жасқа толу, достигать совершеннолетия; мұраға алу, получать наследство; юрисдикцияға түсу, подпадать под юрисдикцию;(заңның) әрекеттеріне ілігу, подпадать под действие (закона); мұраға ие болу, вступать (в наследство);
Task 18. Give 5-6 sentences with words given in ex. 16.
Unit 6