Reading and Discussing

Task I. Read the following text about differences in civil and criminal law.

Differences between Civil and Criminal Procedures

Most countries make a rather clear distinction between civil and criminal procedures. Although some systems, including the English, allow a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution against another citizen, criminal actions are nearly always started by the state. Civil actions, on the other hand, are usually started by individuals.

In Anglo-American law, the party bringing a criminal action (that is, in most cases, the state) is called the prosecution, but the party bringing a civil action is the plaintiff. In both kinds of action the other party is known as the defendant. A criminal case against a person called MS. Sanchez would be described as “The People vs. (versus, or against) Sanchez” in the United States and R. (Regina, that is, the Queen) vs. Sanchez” in England. But a civil action between Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Smith would be described as “Sanchez vs. Smith” if it was started by Sanchez, and “Smith vs. Sanchez” if it was started by Mr. Smith.

Evidence from a criminal trial is not necessarily admissible as evidence in a civil action about the same matter. For example, the victim of a road accident does not directly benefit if the driver who injured him is found guilty of the crime of careless driving. The victim of the crime pursues his claim for compensation in a civil action. He has to prove his case in a civil action. In fact he may be able to prove his civil case even when the driver is found not guilty in the criminal trial.

Once the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is liable, the main argument in a civil court is about the amount of money, or damages, which the defendant should pay to the plaintiff.

Task II. Mark the following statements as true or false. Correct the false statements.

1. Both damages and fines are sums of money.

2. Both damages and fines may benefit the victim of an accident.

3. Damages are part of the civil system of law.

4. Fines are part of the criminal system of law.

5. In English law an act of violence against a person may be treated both as a crime and as a civil tort.

6. There is no distinction between criminal and civil procedures in Anglo-American law.

7. In England a private citizen may bring a criminal prosecution against another citizen.

8. Civil actions are usually started by individuals.

9. The party bringing a criminal action is called a plaintiff.

10. The party against which a civil action is brought is called a defendant.

11. The main argument in a civil court is the amount of damages, which the plaintiff should pay to the defendant.

12. In English law the prosecution must prove the guilt of the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Additional Reading

Task I. Read the following text.

In the Central Criminal Court

So there I was in the dock of the Central Criminal Court – the old Bailey. The trial finally got under way. First the jury details were settled and then the action began, the prosecution being the first to take the floor. The prosecuting counsel was a tall, thin man, who seemed to enjoy his job. He began with a rather offhand introduction and started calling the prosecution witnesses, while Rollins, the defence counsel, looked on with a bored expression on his face. I had met Rollins twice and knew he had almost no hope of winning my case. I was going to plead not guilty but there was too much evidence against me.

The prosecution witnesses were being sworn in one after another. They were good – very good, indeed – and I began to see why the prosecuting counsel was looking so cheerful. Expert police witnesses introduced photographs and drawings of the scene of the crime.

There was the motherly old lady who had identified me at the police station. “I saw him strike the postman,” she testified, the light of honesty shining from her eyes. “I was standing in the corridor and saw the accused hit the postman with his fist, grab a yellow box from him and push him into the office. Then the accused ran down the stairs.”

The prosecutor offered her a plan of the second floor. “Where were you standing?”

She pointed out a place in the corridor and looked across the court straight at me. The sweet old lady was lying, and she knew that I knew she was lying. She couldn’t have been standing in the corridor because I had checked, and the details of her evidence were all wrong, anyway. There wasn’t a thing I could do about it, though.

A hotel employee testified that the accused stayed at his hotel.

The postman gave his evidence fairly. I had hit him and he had recovered consciousness in my office. There was nothing in that which contradicted the evidence of the sweet old lady. The third eye-witness was the office boy from the office opposite mine; he said he saw me lock the office door and run downstairs.

There wasn’t much after that. I said my words, and the prosecutor tore me into pieces. Rollins tried to save me without much success. The judge summed up and directed the jury to find me guilty. The jury was out only half and hour and the verdict was what I had expected.

Then the judge asked if I had anything to say, so I spoke up with just two words:” I’m innocent.” After that the judge got up to pronounce the sentence.

“Joseph Aloysius Rearden, you have been found guilty of stealing by force diamonds to the value of $ 173, 000. It falls to me to sentence you for the crime. I sentence you to twenty years’ detention in such prison or prisons as the appropriate authority thinks fit”.

(After “The Freedom Trap” by D. Bagley)

Task II. Answer the following questions on the story.

1. Is a civil court or criminal court procedure described in the story?

2. How did the trial begin?

3. Who was the first to open the trial?

4. What kind of evidence did the prosecuting counsel present?

5. What kind of evidence did the expert police witnesses present?

6. What happened during the direct examination of witnesses?

7. How many prosecution witnesses testified?

8. Did any of the defence witnesses testify?

9. Did the defence counsel cross-examine the witnesses?

10. What stage followed the presentation of evidence?

11. What did the prosecuting counsel do in his closing arguments?

12. What did the defence counsel say in his closing arguments?

13. Did the prosecution prove the case against the defendant?

14. What stage followed the closing arguments?

15. How did the judge instruct the jury?

16. What verdict did the jury return?

17. What was the final stage of the trial?

18. Was it a just trial?

Task III. Describe the British Criminal Court procedure.

Task IV. Retell the story as if you were:

1. the defendant;

2. the judge;

3. the defence counsel;

4. the prosecuting counsel;

5. the witness.