Sunny

Our system of law is recognised as the adversary system. It begins from a point of conflict either from criminal or civil and traverses through various check points of the legal process looking for resolution or recompense. Each side battling the opposing parties’ argument while defending their own. In the hope of achieving a positive verdict in front of the neutral adjudicator the Judge acting as the passive umpire and guardian of the law. Critics may argue that fundamental values of liberty, equality openness and neutrality may be hindered with settlement out of court and by pre negotiation and litigation. In evaluating our system of law, is the best it is necessary to follow and discuss this process.
In most common law countries trials are formally structured on the adversarial model. The adversarial system is generally adopted in most common law countries and is held as checks and balances on judicial and state power. Normative Libertarian principles ensure the onus is on the crown to establish guilt. They can only achieve this be pulverizing the reason of innocence, allowing the judge and jury to determine the potential strength of the crowns’ case. In Contrast with the Adversarial system is the Inquisitorial system which is found in continental Europe.
In the inquisitorial system the judge is more involved in the process in trying to determine the truth. The judge is able to question witness and request the direction of evidence, the amount of control given to either the accused or the prosecutor is significantly less as is seen in an adversarial system. Consequently the judge has been compared to “director of an improvised play, the outcome of which is not known to him at first but depends heavily on his mode of directing.”1
The Judges involvement in an inquisitorial system is designed to realise the “objective truth”2 collectively and reach a just conclusion. However, deep rooted liberal rule of law in the “English societies rather than the continental