Home Views & Opinions Adversarial Vs Inquisitorial Systems of Justice

Adversarial Vs Inquisitorial Systems of Justice

604
0

Adversarial and Inquisitorial system of justice both represent two diverse means of conducting trials. Adversarial system of justice has been utilized in common law jurisdictions such as England and Inquisitorial system of justice is utilized by the mainland Europe.
Adversarial is the perfect system of justice which is in contrast with the judicial mechanism of Pakistan. In adversarial system, the things go gradually in a parallel procedure and everything comes step by step. Mainly in Pakistan, judges dig out the decision of the cases by going through the factual circumstances of the cases and the evidences in support of the cases of Parties.
The adversarial system is a two-pronged structure under which criminal trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defence. Justice is done when the most effective and fair adversary is able to persuade the judge or jury that his or her standpoint on the case is the correct one.
Inquisitorial system of justice is where a judge himself investigates the allegations put in the reports. He sits with the parties and prepares the decision of the case. There is little use of judicial precedent in inquisitorial systems. This means Judges are free to decide each case independently of previous decisions by applying the relevant statutes.
In adversarial system, evidence is collected by the parties and Investigation officers during an investigation especially in the criminal trials, they are produced before the judge and both parties are cross-examined. In civil cases information is garnered by the both sides namely Plaintiff and defendant during the pleadings and discovery stage, but the statements of witnesses are not collected.
In adversarial system, the character of the parties is to be determined whether the accused is habitual offender or involved in any case before. If that is ascertained he reflects the bad character is often inadmissible evidence goes against the accused. Sometimes, the witnesses are called to respond the question if that is an important and only the witnesses know their details.
It is stated in 2017 YLR Note 342 Our system of dispensation of criminal justice is an adversarial in nature, casting primary responsibility on the prosecution to drive home charge beyond a shadow of doubt against the accused, who would confront indictment under a presumption of innocence. The prosecution can, however, dislodge this presumption of innocence on the strength of evidence to be adduced in accordance with the rules of procedure.
Trial of an accused is to be conducted in accord with the commands of procedure; it must be least embarrassing to the accused enabling him to conveniently and comfortably meet the prosecution half way. Without being hyper-technical the rules of procedure are to faithfully followed as these constitute an integral part of Due Process of law which is inexorably with procedural fairness. Procedural safeguards are essential to procedural fairness.
Ergo, in future Pakistan and other countries may adopt the functioning of both systems of Justice as per the nature of the cases if it reflects the cases would go generations-long and hampering the enforcement of maxim Justice delayed, Justice denied over there in trial of the cases.