Advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system in criminal proceedings, William van Caenegem [read novel full .txt] 📗

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Adversarial System

 

Recommended Citation

van Caenegem, William, "Advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system in criminal proceedings" (1999). Law Faculty Publications. Paper 224.

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/law_pubs/224

 

 

This Research Report is brought to you by the Faculty of Law at ePublications@bond. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ePublications@bond. For more information, please contact Bond University's Repository Coordinator.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Adversarial System in Criminal Proceedings

 

 

 

1-1-1999

Advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system in criminal proceedings

William van Caenegem

Bond University, william_van_caenegem@bond.edu.au

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

General remarks

 

In this sub-section the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system are investigated with reference to the most well-known (and closely affiliated) alternative, the (so-called) inquisitorial system prevalent in continental Europe, and in a large number of other nations, including some in our region.

 

Although the adversarial system is contrasted with the inquisitorial system, the latter in fact also enshrines in law the right of the accused to oppose the evidence of the prosecution and introduce evidence to prove innocence; it is thus 'contradictoire' (to use the French term) or adversarial in that sense. It is rather the structure and organisation of the forensic process or investigative method, than the adversarial nature of proceedings, that distinguishes the two systems.I In an adversarial system, the parties, acting independently and in a partisan fashion, are responsible for uncovering and presenting evidence before a passive and neutral trial judge or jury. In an inquisitorial system, the ultimate responsibility for finding the truth lies with an official body that acts with judicial authority, and gathers evidence both for and against the accused. Whereas the actors in an adversarial system are equal and opposing parties, in an inquisitorial system the accused is thus not a party to proceedings to the same extent.

 

Both the pre-trial and trial stages are covered in this sub-section. In civil law jurisdictions, the two stages (the instruction and the trial) tend to coalesce more into a seamless process, and one of the main areas of contention concerning reform of criminal procedure in adversarial jurisdictions is precisely the extension of judicial management and supervision into the pre-trial stage.

 

The theoretical distinctions between inquisitorial and adversarial jurisdictions

 

 

 

(primarily concerning party prosecution and presentation, judicial activism, and different fact-finding methods) translate into systems that operate quite distinctly at the practical level as well. The inquisitorial system is thus a useful reference point with a view to reform in Western Australia. Much of the criticism levelled at the adversarial system is centred precisely on the autonomous role of the accused as a party, and proposals have been put forward for greater judicial control over the actions of both parties before and during the trial.2 Indeed, there have even been calls for the adoption of an inquisitorial model in Australian states.3 A closer analysis of inquisitorial models facilitates a measured response to such calls, and to the various claims

- some more justifiable than others - that are made on behalf of inquisitorial models; it permits realistic identification of 'transportable' elements.

 

The main inquisitorial jurisdictions that are taken into account are France, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany. The most general common characteristics of inquisitorial systems are referred to, and detailed points of difference are only mentioned where it is relevant to do so.4 This is done in full realisation of the fact that there are important differences between civilian jurisdictions in the area of criminal proceedings.

 

 

Basic policy goals of the law of criminal procedure

Both adversarial and inquisitorial systems, which effectively monopolise the determination of the existence of a criminal offence and sentencing, in the hands of the state,5 have as their primary and most fundamental purpose the prevention of private justice by retribution, i.e. nec cives ad arma ruant.6 In this object both inquisitorial and adversarial systems have arguably been largely successful over long periods of time. Further, the goal of the law of criminal procedure in a democratic and rights-based jurisdiction is to ensure procedural fairness, while balancing the rights of the individual with the rights and interests of society as a whole.7 And pub/ic demonstration of fairness, justice and respect for rights in criminal proceedings is important as it justifies the monopolisation of criminal justice by the state, and helps to maintain public confidence in the system.8

 

Strictly speaking the goals of the /aw of crimina/ procedure are different from, and more limited than, those of substantive crimina/ /aw.9 The primary goals of substantive criminal law and the administration of sentences, are punishment, deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation. The law of criminal procedure must be in tune with the goals of substantive criminal law, and vice versa; it is, in any case, not always possible or desirable to maintain a strict separation between the two areas of law.IO Furthermore, there will always be areas of tension between the goals, rules and principles of substantive criminal law and those of the law of criminal procedure.

 

Achieving the aforementioned policy goals against a background of unavoidably limited, and also unequal, resources requires compromise. The nature of the

 

 

 

compromise may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from system to system.II Nonetheless, it is of cardinal importance that, in considering reform of criminal procedure, those principles that underlie each individual system, ensure justice, and justify public confidence, not be compromised on the basis alone of adverse prioratisation concerning expenditure of limited resources.

 

One final point, important given the apparent trend towards harsher criminal penalties and greater limitations on traditional judicial discretions: the role of the system of criminal justice in preventing crime will not be greatly emphasised, because deterrence is only a secondary goal of the law of crimina/ procedure, and because in any case the effectiveness of the substantive criminal law in deterring criminal conduct is uncertain. Nonetheless, it is uncontroversial that a system of criminal procedure that is inherently adapted to producing correct outcomes quickly and fairly, will be more effective in delivering the goals that the substantive criminal law pursues, including deterrence. Further, the administration of criminal justice as opposed to the policing of criminal conduct, is the subject of this sub-section.

 

 

Starting premises relevant to reform of adversarial criminal procedure

Serious concerns about the law of criminal procedure are not unique to Western Australia or even to adversarial systems in general, and can be discussed in a dispassionate atmosphere, transcending national and jurisdictional boundaries. Nonetheless, the wholesale adoption of an inquisitorial system seems impractical in an adversarial jurisdiction such as Western Australia, and would not necessarily address many of the problems of the adversarial system. In any case, this sub-section does not consider adoption of an inquisitorial model, but the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial model. And although some, even major, aspects of an inquisitorial system may be appropriate for adoption in Western Australia they will not necessarily be those that appear most enticing upon a cursory survey of inquisitorial models.I2

 

Both adversarial and inquisitorial systems have advantages and disadvantages. Discussions as to which is better than the other almost invariably focus on one single aspect of each system, rather than on a balanced appraisal of the system as a whole, and are therefore misleading and unhelpful. Nonetheless, on a detailed analysis, most of the advantages and disadvantages of each system are readily identifiable. The overall effect of those disadvantages and advantages on the quality of justice though, is less easy to identify or assess.

 

The fact that despite important differences in the way the criminal law is administered, authorities in inquisitorial and adversarial jurisdictions struggle with similar problems, supports the point just made. On the one hand, each system has its inherent structural shortcomings, in terms of acceptable standards of prosecution of cases, in terms of rights, and in terms of outcomes. On the other hand, each type of jurisdiction also faces resource limitations in

 

 

 

a context of increasing criminalisation of conduct and public concern about criminality and victimisation. Interestingly enough, responses to these pressures in both inquisitorial and adversarial jurisdictions follow broadly similar lines and have already resulted in a degree of convergence.I3 Inquisitorial jurisdictions are engaged upon a search for reforms with equal urgency, and are subject to legal impulses from various quarters, just as much as common law jurisdictions are.I4 There is little evidence of a general movement only in one direction (ie towards the adoption of more inquisitorial models).

 

THE MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM

 

Theoretical Characteristics of the Inquisitorial System

A brief and generalised account of the basic theoretical characteristics of an inquisitorial system of criminal procedure follows.I5

 

The deliberate use of the term 'theoretical' is motivated by the fact that the theory (i.e. the formal codified structures) of the law of criminal procedure is very different from its practice in inquisitorial systems. In other words, there is a normative mode/ of the criminal process, and a quite distinct practice of the criminal process. Thus in theory the inquisitorial system (as described in many textbooks) may arguably be stronger and more reliable, but in truth the system may appear more attractive than the actual practice justifies.I6 Different practice may well be the effect, of course, of lax application of legal norms, but it may as well reflect, at least to some degree, the inherent impracticality of the complex theoretical model in modern conditions.I7 Conversely, the adversarial system, more organically grown from practice, is arguably less satisfying in theory, but at least its operation in practice approximates the theoretical model more closely.

 

The normative/practical divide in inquisitorial systems results in part from codification, based as it is, in theoretically conceived constructs. Codified structures also tend to rigidity, complexity, and piecemeal amendment. The result is a failure to adjust adequately to the present-day reality of a congruence between a rise in the number of offences and a decline in available resources (that is not to say that there have not been regular attempts to update the law of criminal procedure).I8 Another cause of the divergence between practice and theory is the legalistic nature of codified systems, with a general aversion to discretionary (judicial) decision making. In reality, of course, discretion on the part of all judicial and non-judicial officers is part and parcel of everyday life in the criminal law.

 

The codified inquisitorial system is based on a mandatory sequence of formally documented steps. In theory each decision en route from offence to conviction or acquittal, is circumscribed by legal rules (the principle of 'legality' as opposed to 'opportunity'). By law, judicial police officers (po/ice judiciaire, effectively the CIB or equivalent)I9 have the power to investigate offences. They draw up documents (the proces-verba/) with a formal legal status concerning notification of an offence, and concerning each investigative measure. These documents

 

 

 

are gradually added to the file or dossier. In theory the prosecutor (procureur) must be notified in writing of every offence of which the judicial police has itself taken written notice, and must receive the relevant file (dossier). The prosecutor may then deal with the matter by filing the notification without further action (/e sepot), for instance because the facts do not reveal any offence. Alternatively, he may instruct the judicial police to take further forensic and investigative measures. He is under an obligation to gather evidence for and against the accused in a neutral and objective manner, as the goal of the prosecution is not to obtain a conviction but to discover the truth and to apply the law. In complex cases, major offences, or politically sensitive matters, the investigation will be supervised and directed not by the prosecutor, but by an investigating magistrate (juge d'instruction), to whom the prosecutor transmits the file (dossier) until the investigation is complete.2O In reality, in most ordinary cases the investigation is effectively completed by the judicial police even before the prosecutor receives the file or dossier, and few active steps remain to be taken under the instructions of the prosecutor.2I Once the file or dossier is complete, the case may proceed