Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Has the time come for the common law to be scrapped?

By Katy Barnett - posted Friday, 9 January 2009


The investigative [inquisitorial] system now affects more than 1.6 billion in European countries, their former colonies, and other countries, including Japan. It requires more trained judges than the adversary system, and fewer lawyers. In criminal cases, 99 of 100 accused are actually guilty. The investigative system convicts 95; the adversary system fewer than 50, and at a higher cost. A civil hearing in the investigative system takes a total of about a day. In the adversary system, it can take weeks, months or years.

It is beyond the scope of my expertise to look at this in detail, but I do wonder where the statistics are from and how the author ascertained who was “guilty” out of the 100 accused …

In conclusion, yes, the adversarial system has definite drawbacks. But can a more inquisitorial mode fix those drawbacks?

Advertisement

3. Truth and the common law

This is the part of the article which I think has least credence. I see both the adversarial and inquisitorial systems as looking for the truth; they just come at it from different directions. Yes, the common law is more process focused, but ultimately, like the civil law, it aims to deliver justice. It is justice which is really important.

I believe that many lawyers do think about justice and fair outcomes. Further, I also believe that many lawyers know the origins of the law. Certainly, I always teach the history of the law in Equity and Property because I think it’s essential to an understanding of how the law operates now and some of the bizarre quirks it exhibits. I also think that most judges and judicial officers are concerned to deliver just outcomes.

4. Is the inquisitorial system really better?

I would question the assumption by the author of the article that the introduction of an inquisitorial system in Australia is a “quick fix” to all the problems of the law. Here, I have drawn heavily on Chapter 1.3 (PDF 178KB) of the WA Law Reform Commission’s Review of the criminal and civil justice system in Western Australia (No. 92, 1999). The review explores the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system in criminal proceedings. Have a read of it in detail if you are interested in the topic. At pages 86 - 87, the Review notes that both the adversarial and inquisitorial systems have similar concerns and problems, namely:

  • Increased demand on resources with less availability.
  • The problem of delay.
  • Public criticism of systemic failings.
  • Concerns about victims of crime.

This just shows that no system is perfect and that the same problems arise over and over again. Indeed, Italy scrapped its inquisitorial system and replaced it with an adversarial system in 1988, although the system has largely reverted back to its old form.

The report concludes that the adversarial system does have some advantages over the inquisitorial system, including a greater emphasis on the presumption of innocence and the right to silence of the offender. Due process can produce justice.

Advertisement

And in some respects, the problems of the law seem intrinsic, regardless of which system is implemented.

5. Conclusion

I would be wary of accepting the premises of this article wholesale. Yes, there are definite problems with the legal system, and yes, I would like to see those problems reformed to the extent possible. I think useful things can be learned from the inquisitorial system, and perhaps some aspects should be adopted here. But I do not think that the inquisitorial system is the panacea to all the law’s ills.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

First published in Skepticlawyer on September 2, 2008. This article has been judged as one of the Best Blogs 2008 run in collaboration with Club Troppo. If you have a blog post you would like to nominate please send it to submissions@onlineopinion.com.au.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

30 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Katy Barnett is a lawyer, blogger and lecturer at the University of Melbourne. She lives in Melbourne, Australia and blogs at Skepticlawyer.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Katy Barnett

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 30 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy