Criminal vs Civil trial requirements
Discussion
Having a little discussion with some friends, none of us have ever been in court or charged with any crimes or involved in any civil actions.
We were discussing that in a criminal action the accused is shown the evidence against them and therefore is able to construct a defence before the actual trial begins.
In a civil action is the same requirement mandatory, or can evidence, not shown prior to the trial, be introduced at the trial and how would it be revealed to the accused/ his-her representative??.
We were discussing that in a criminal action the accused is shown the evidence against them and therefore is able to construct a defence before the actual trial begins.
In a civil action is the same requirement mandatory, or can evidence, not shown prior to the trial, be introduced at the trial and how would it be revealed to the accused/ his-her representative??.
Racing Newt said:
Having a little discussion with some friends, none of us have ever been in court or charged with any crimes or involved in any civil actions.
We were discussing that in a criminal action the accused is shown the evidence against them and therefore is able to construct a defence before the actual trial begins.
In a civil action is the same requirement mandatory, or can evidence, not shown prior to the trial, be introduced at the trial and how would it be revealed to the accused/ his-her representative??.
I have been through the small claims process and I did need to disclose evidence prior to the hearing. It isn't a TV show, you wont get bonus points for bringing out a bit of evidence at the trial.We were discussing that in a criminal action the accused is shown the evidence against them and therefore is able to construct a defence before the actual trial begins.
In a civil action is the same requirement mandatory, or can evidence, not shown prior to the trial, be introduced at the trial and how would it be revealed to the accused/ his-her representative??.
Most civil disputes fall under the civil procedure rules which are viewable online. The rules require parties to provide their arguments, facts, and evidence as early as possible in the process. The later a party introduces new arguments, facts, or evidence without a good reason, the more likely they are to be penalised on costs, or to have the new evidence not be admitted, or for the other party may be given more time to respond.
guitarcarfanatic said:
Burden of proof is different as well.
Criminal - has to beyond reasonable doubt, 99.9%.
Civil is more likely than not, 51%.
Just a small thing, but I believe the term "beyond reasonable doubt" is now obsolete and juries are now advised that they need to be "sure"Criminal - has to beyond reasonable doubt, 99.9%.
Civil is more likely than not, 51%.
Bri957 said:
I'm sure those with more experience will answer shortly.
However the main difference is that in civil law, you have to demonstrate a loss - not that a law has been broken.
Criminal - must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, also includes innocent unless proven guilty.
In an employment tribunal you do have to show the law has been broken, be it employment, discrimination, contract etc.. Once proven, the loss is considered with to regard the settlement.However the main difference is that in civil law, you have to demonstrate a loss - not that a law has been broken.
Criminal - must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, also includes innocent unless proven guilty.
whimsical ninja said:
Just a small thing, but I believe the term "beyond reasonable doubt" is now obsolete and juries are now advised that they need to be "sure"
The test is still beyond reasonable doubt but judges are directed to say to jurys that they are sure as the feeling is juries won't understand what reasonable doubt means.All I have heard in Liverpool is reasonable doubt
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff