Self publishing for academics Self-publishing is the new and free way to publish academic books or ebooks that can reach a worldwide audience Writers, academics, discover the scope and technique of self publishing on Academic Self Publishing. European data protection notice. We use cookies solely for audience statistics and to enable social media and a few advertisements. In , their Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to permit the parties also to examine witnesses.
I understand that continues to be the normal procedure. There is, however, an increasing incidence of the use of cross-examination by the lawyers, perhaps stimulated by the expectations of French citizens used to seeing television crime dramas from English speaking countries. As I indicated earlier, there is no general right to silence in the sense that inferences can and will be drawn against an accused who does not answer questions. Normally the accused is interrogated before the jury, another significant distinction from standard practice in our courts where the calling of an accused is the exception rather than the rule.
A complicating feature of the French system is that civil parties, those who have been affected by the crimes alleged, normally appear and pursue claims for civil damages or other relief in parallel proceedings at the same time as the criminal trial is heard.
When the judges and jury retire together to consider their verdict, the issue is not whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. Rather the jury is asked to answer a series of questions relevant to the issues raised by the charge, the answers to which will determine whether or not the accused is guilty. The judges and jurors consider the issues in conference, including questions of penalty.
To that extent, at least, the interaction between judge and jury is quite unlike our system. Four years ago my associate was a young French judge and one of the differences between our systems which drew his attention was the care we judges use to make sure that we do not speak to the jury except in the court room and then in a very formal way.
Nor is the decision one that must be arrived at unanimously or by a majority of ten out of twelve as may occur in most cases here now. There has to be a two-thirds majority of the combined numbers of the jury and the judges. The law does not ask the judges to account for the means by which they convinced themselves; it does not charge them with any rule from which they shall specifically derive the fullness and adequacy of evidence.
It requires them to question themselves in silence and reflection and to seek in the sincerity of their conscience what impression has been made on their reason by the evidence brought against the accused and the arguments of his defence. What seems unusual to us is that the appeal is conducted as a retrial. The evidence is called again before a slightly larger jury, nine instead of six with the same number of professional judges.
It is curious for us to see a trial court substituting its decision for an earlier trial court as part of an appeal process. We leave the appellate process to a panel of judges who review the evidence and the conduct of the trial below.
Even if we do give our judges wide powers to set aside a jury verdict they will either quash the conviction or send the decision back to the trial court if a new trial is needed. Our courts of appeal sometimes receive fresh evidence but do not conduct a complete new trial. Moreover, there is no system in French courts to transcribe oral evidence. The appeal must, therefore, necessarily be one constituting what we would think of as a hearing de novo on fresh evidence.
The record, the dossier , does not contain the oral evidence that was before the original jury. The appellate jury court does, however, receive evidence of the answers provided by the earlier jury. When it began, the appellate system was not used frequently but is used more now as the legal system becomes more familiar with the new institution.
The criminal jury trial in France began as a legal transplant from England. The English system was an obvious model to adapt. Limitations have also been imposed over the years on the types of charges that may be dealt with by jury trial. In my view, the jury trial in our system similarly retains its importance as a protector of democratic principles.
The fascination, as with many aspects of comparative law, lies in examining how an idea takes root in foreign soil and is transformed, often dramatically, by its adaptation to a different society. The examination of the French jury trial system throws an interesting light on how the closed bureaucratic investigative system, otherwise typical of French criminal law, can be opened to the scrutiny of ordinary French citizens, if rather differently from the way the jury operates in the common law.
From the comparative viewpoint understanding the French system can assist when considering possible changes to ours. The converse is also true. Bron McKillop in his monograph, Anatomy of a French Murder Case ,8 describes three features of the French system of which we could take advantage: greater control by the judiciary over the legality and propriety of the use of police powers to obtain evidence; the use of independent experts from panels supervised by the courts; and the ability to draw adverse inferences from the silence of the accused.
England and some Australian jurisdictions have adopted legislative changes reflecting those sorts of concerns, sometimes controversially. While the International Criminal Court and the specialised international criminal tribunals do not use juries, their criminal procedure is essentially a hybrid of civilian and common law systems. They provide further examples of the internationalisation of legal norms.
Complaints about the dilatory pace at which cases proceed in those courts suggest, however, that a greater focus needs to be placed on improving their procedures. Informed comparative analysis about ways to improve that system should start from a proper understanding of the procedural sources, a course which needs to draw on an understanding of how the rules reflect the particular societies from which they came.
Legal transplants or hybrids do not always grow as expected. For example: Six Months — Hotel and restaurant bills.
Two Years — Insurance receipts and cancellation letters; receipts for professional fees; standing order instructions and bank deposit slips; employment contracts; credit notes; water bills; bills for electric appliances and clothing; social security and complementary insurance refunds; property tax demands; receipts for family allowance payments.
Three Years — TV licence demands; currency exchange receipts. Four Years — Income and wealth tax bills and proofs of payment. Five Years — Life insurance receipts; pay slips other than salary statements; unemployment payment slips; divorce settlements; electricity and gas bills; rental charges and payment receipts; proof of payments to notaires ; social security contribution records; receipts for non-salary income. Six Years — Letters of dismissal; income tax demands and returns plus supporting paperwork.
Life — Identity cards and residence permits; marriage and divorce certificates; education certificates; life insurance contracts; receipts for legal fees; salary statements; building and other work guarantees; unemployment registration; marriage contracts and divorce papers; co-ownership agreements; bills for valuables; records relating to gifts; education certificates; medical records and certificates; hospital bills; local tax bills; savings account books; livret de famille ; pension payment receipts and other documents.
Product guarantees and receipts should be kept for as long as you have the products, and rental agreements until the end of the rental period.
This article is an extract from Living and working in France. Click here to get a copy now. By Just Landed.
0コメント