Criminal procedure

Criminal procedure is the process through which criminal law is adjudicated. While it varies significantly depending on the jurisdiction, it typically starts with a formal criminal charge, and the accused may be released on bail or held in custody. The process ends with either a conviction or an acquittal. Criminal procedure follows either an inquisitorial or an adversarial model.

Basic rights

In many democratic countries that uphold the rule of law, criminal procedure places the burden of proof on the prosecution. This means the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than the defense having to prove innocence. Any doubt is resolved in the defendant’s favor.

This principle, known as the presumption of innocence, is required under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the 46 member states of the Council of Europe and appears in other human rights documents, though it operates somewhat differently in practice across countries. Other basic rights include the defendant’s right to know the offense for which they were arrested or charged, and the right to appear before a judicial official within a set time after arrest. Many jurisdictions also guarantee the right to legal counsel, providing a publicly funded lawyer for those who cannot afford one.

Difference between criminal and civil cases

Common law countries tend to draw a clear line between civil and criminal procedures. For instance, an English criminal court may order a convicted person to pay a fine to the Crown as punishment and sometimes cover the prosecution’s legal costs, but it does not typically order compensation to the victim. The victim must seek damages through a separate civil action. In contrast, in civil law countries like France and Italy, a criminal court judge can award damages to the victim, referred to as the “injured party.”

The standard of proof is higher in criminal cases than in civil ones, because the losing party risks not just financial penalties but also imprisonment or, in some countries, execution. In English law, the prosecution must prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt,” while a civil plaintiff must prove their case “on the balance of probabilities.” The phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” is not defined for the jury, but appeal courts have stated it requires excluding any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, as in Plomp v. R. In a civil case, the court simply weighs the evidence and decides what is most probable.

Criminal and civil procedures also differ in who brings the action. Although some systems, including England’s, allow a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution, criminal actions are nearly always initiated by the state. Civil actions, by contrast, are usually started by individuals.

In Anglo-American law, the party bringing a criminal action (usually the state) is called the prosecution, while the party bringing a civil action is the plaintiff. The other party in a civil action is the defendant; in a criminal case, the private party may be called the defendant or the accused. A U.S. federal criminal case against a person named Ms. Sanchez would be titled United States v.

Sanchez; if brought by a state, it would typically be State v. Sanchez or People v. Sanchez. In the United Kingdom, the criminal case would be styled R. v. Sanchez (for Rex or Regina).

A civil action between Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Smith would be Sanchez v. Smith if she started it, or Smith v. Sanchez if he did.

Evidence from a criminal trial is not automatically admissible in a civil action about the same matter, and vice versa. For example, a road accident victim does not directly benefit if the driver is found guilty of careless driving; the victim must still prove their case in a civil action.

They might succeed in the civil case even if the driver is acquitted in the criminal trial. If the accused gave evidence in the criminal trial, they can be cross-examined on those statements in a later civil action, regardless of the criminal verdict. Once the plaintiff proves liability, the main argument in civil court is about the amount of damages the defendant should pay.

Most civil law jurisdictions use an inquisitorial system, where judges actively investigate claims by examining evidence at trial, and other judges contribute by preparing reports. In common law systems, the trial judge oversees an adversarial process, with both the prosecution and defense preparing arguments to present in court.

Differences between civil law and common law systems

Some civil law systems have adopted adversarial procedures. Proponents of each system believe theirs best protects the rights of the innocent. Common law countries often think civil law or inquisitorial systems lack the presumption of innocence and adequate defense rights, while countries with inquisitorial systems tend to believe adversarial systems have their own shortcomings.