In other words, we will have arrived at
an inquisitorial system.
An appeal to
an inquisitorial system of justice — which in truth, and despite Re L, does not exist in English law — does not avoid the need of lawyers and judges to observe the rule of law.
The modern realities of the trial penalty (where defendants get 10 + more years for a crime because they go to trial), and the fact that 95 % of all convictions are from pleas, shows in another way how our justice system has become a (prosecutor - controlled)
inquisitorial system of criminal justice.
The inquisitorial system (derived from the Latin word inquisitio «to inquire»), is one in which the court actively investigates a case rather than simply being an impartial referee — in short, the court acts as detective, prosecutor and judge.
The resulting code is the basis of the modern so - called «
inquisitorial system» of criminal courts, used in France and many civil law countries, though significantly changed since Bonaparte's day (especially with regard to the expansion of the rights of the defendant).
Not exact matches
The task of the Royal Commission is to see whether the starkly adversarial English judicial
system might be replaced by an
inquisitorial one, or mitigated by certain
inquisitorial elements.
I would like to respectfully disagree with the fundamental premise underlying your statement, «If Blakely is about preferring adversarial to
inquisitorial sentencing procedures and if the Framers wanted juries rather than judges to control sentencing, then are indeterminate sentencing
systems unconstitutional?»
Many of these witnesses come from countries with an
inquisitorial legal
system and have little or no knowledge of the adversarial UK legal
system.
He does this even if it means handing the remedy to justices who will use Booker to increase the
inquisitorial nature of the judicial
system.
Thus the belief that issue estoppel can not apply to family proceedings is shown to be «absurd»; and, in passing, Lord Neuberger allies himself with the minority in Re L (led by Lord Nicholls) who had been so disparaging — the «beguiling term
inquisitorial» — of the non-adversarial
system espoused by the majority.
The refugee
system is
inquisitorial which means a member of the Immigration & Refugee Board will ask questions related to the refugee claim.
While I suspect there will always be a need for authoritarian and perhaps adversarial court processes to address truly intractable individuals and problems of genuine urgency, I worry that a reconceptualization of the
system may call for more than triage processes and the co-locatation of social services, both of which are reconfigurations of existing services, but may demand a fundamental reconsideration of our basic assumptions and a critically examination of alternatives such as
inquisitorial processes, abridged trial procedures, non-adversarial judging techniques, the embedding of mental health professionals in decision - making processes and so forth.
Questions such as how is the justice
system to operate an
inquisitorial process effectively need to be considered... What effect would it have on the structure of our courts, and courts administration?
The drive to cut costs is threatening to undermine our adversarial
system and give judges a more
inquisitorial role (see my article «Justice in the balance»).