Fair Trial and Judicial Independence pp 163-176 | Cite as
A Comparative Approach to the Evaluation of Evidence from a ‘Fair Trial’ Perspective
Abstract
In this chapter, the first problem I analyse is how ‘fairness’ in the judicial procedure may be interpreted in the evaluation of evidence in criminal proceedings. After this, I move onto methodological questions, which arise as a result of the comparative analysis. Finally, I introduce various legal practices through using examples from different legal systems in order to demonstrate how each approaches the general expectation of fairness.
One of the conclusions of this study is that fair evaluation of evidence does not depend on the existence of declarations of general principles, or the traditions of the given legal culture, but rather is more dependent on the level of proximity of legal regulations to the ‘reality’ and on the level of reasonable detail in the text of the law. Thus, I argue that we cannot say that the fairness of evaluation of evidence is just a question of ‘judicial wisdom’. The second lesson is that the development of evidence procedures is not simply a question for the legal profession. A clear correlation exists between the fair nature of evidence evaluation and the democratic traditions of the given legal system.
Keywords
Legal System Fair Procedure Criminal Proceeding Criminal Procedure Free EvaluationReferences
- Bárd, K. 1987. A büntető hatalom megosztásának buktatói, 78. Budapest: Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
- Bárd, K. 2003. Demokrácia-Tisztességes eljárás- megismerés a büntetőperben. In Emlékkönyv Kratochwill Ferenc (1933–1993) tiszteletére, ed. Farkas Ákos, 72. Miskolc: Bíbor Kiadó.Google Scholar
- Bencze, M. 2010. Az ártatlanság vélelmének érvényesülése a magyar büntetőbíróságok gyakorlatában. http://jog.unideb.hu/documents/tanszekek/jogbolcseleti/publikcik/artatlansag_veleme_a_gyakorlatban.pdf.
- Bíró, A. 1994. Kritikai megjegyzések a büntetőeljárás koncepciójához. Ügyészségi Értesítő 30(2): 8.Google Scholar
- Bócz, E. 2006. Büntetőeljárási jogunk kalandjai, 135. Budapest: Magyar Hivatalos Közlönykiadó.Google Scholar
- Cape, E., et al. 2010. Effective criminal defence in Europe, 87–554. Antwerp/Oxford/Portland: Intersentia.Google Scholar
- Clermont, K. 2009. Standards of proof revisited. The Vermont Law Review 33(3): 469–487.Google Scholar
- Comparative criminal law and enforcement: Russia (JRank) – The criminal trial and the presumption of innocence. Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/683/Comparative-Criminal-Law-Enforcement-Russia-criminal-trial-presumption-innocence.html.
- Cooper, S. 2003. Human rights and legal burdens of proof. Web JCLI 3. http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2003/issue3/cooper3.html.
- Frank, J. 1949. Courts on trial, 108–125. London/Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kadlót, E. 2010. A “vád igazsága”. In A büntető ítélet igazságtartalma, ed. Erdei Árpád, 24. Budapest: Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
- Kengyel, M. 2005. A teljes bizonyosságtól a valószínűség magas fokáig, avagy változatok a bizonyítás céljára a polgári perben. Magyar Jog 52(11): 678.Google Scholar
- Pradel, J. 1992. Rapport general. Revue internationale de droit penal 57(1–2): 13–33.Google Scholar
- Stevens, L. 2009. Pre-trial detention. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law, Criminal Justice 17(2).Google Scholar
- Tadros, V., and S. Tierney. 2004. The presumption of innocence and the Human Rights Act. Modern Law Review 67(6): 402–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thieme, G.V. 1984. The debate on the presumption of innocence in the People’s Republic of China. Review of Socialist Law 10(1–4): 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Waldman, T. 1959. Origins of the legal doctrine of reasonable doubt. Journal of History of Ideas 20(3): 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar