|
CONTENTS UNIT
1. AN INTRODUCTION TO LAWS UNIT
3. CHALLENGES OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM UNIT
7.CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UNIT
12. A LAW FIRM STRUCTURE AND PRACTISE UNIT
14. IMPRISONMENT: RETRIBUTION OR REHIBILITATION |
UNIT 3. CHALLENGES OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM Part 1 FIVE PROBLEMS WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. Jonathan Cunningham Bad laws, whether they reflect and outdated
mode of thinking or are just plain stupid contribute to a lack of popular
support. They weaken the moral authority of the law as well as encourage
citizens to ignore or circumvent the law. I've given three examples, but I've
tried to stay away from laws that are obviously racist/sexist/homophobic.
Unless you're a racist, sexist or homophobe I think it's safe to say we all
disagree with those laws (mandatory minimums discrepancy for crack/powdered
cocaine, sodomy laws, etc.); Marijuana is illegal. As long as a completely
harmless and immensely popular intoxicant is grounds for hard time, we're
going to be putting an unnecessary and extreme burden on our law enforcement. Cash in excess of 10,000 is illegal to
carry. Of course, even if you can prove that the search used to find the
money was illegal, or that the money wasn't at all drug related, the US can
still just sue the money. Since money isn't a citizen, it doesn't have the
same rights you do and the rules that the prosecution plays by get real loose
real fast. Identification is required almost across the
board in the United States. This is less on the written law side (though Hiibel v. Sixth set the standard that a state could make
it illegal to refuse to ID yourself if you're detained for a crime), but in
practice not carrying an ID is almost guaranteed to get you a visit to the
local precinct if you're stopped, even on suspicion without hard evidence.
Seriously cracking down and stopping this will go a long way to rid Police Officers
of the mindset that their responsibilities and authority lies beyond just the
law. Inefficient Law Enforcement– Our law
enforcement is silly, wasteful and abusive. To ensure the safety of the
citizens of the United States, we need to start cutting costs and stopping
abuses of power: •There exists an overemphasis on traffic
laws and drugs in United States law enforcement. Funding and manpower that
should be used keeping citizens safe and good laws enforced is being
misallocated in massive amounts. •Getting rid of the «Blue Shield of Silence»
is vital. I've spoken in length about this before so I won't elaborate here. •There aren't sufficient checks or balances
for local law enforcement. Even without a «Blue Shield» where internal
affairs officers and whistle blowers are demonized, hated and punished for
their work, local officers have far too much leeway in terms of power of
search and seizure, which of course bleeds over into other law enforcement. Overcrowded and Underfunded Prisons – With
so many prisoners from bad laws and bad law enforcement, as well as innocent
prisoners who are working on appeals or have fallen through the cracks, it's
important that we ensure that the human rights of the prisoners are
maintained while keeping the prisons secure. We won't be able to do this with
the number of prisoners we have now: •There are far too many prisoners. 1 in 131
US citizens is in prison. That means for every 132 people, 131 of them has to pay $22,650 per year for the fourth person to be incarcerated. •Prison rape rates are ridiculous. At least
140,000 people are raped in prison every year. For comparison, there are
272,350 rape cases each year outside of prisons. 1/132nd of the population
has more than half of the rape cases of the rest of the country. •The current prison structure generates
artificially low standards of performance by keeping closed doors, closed
books and punishing both officers and inmates who criticize the
administration. Protections for these whistle blowers are vital for a prison
to successfully incarcerate prisoners. Misplaced Burden of Proof– The concept of «Innocent
until proven guilty» is an powerful and necessary
one that we've placed less and less emphasis on as communications technology
exponentially improves. We need to keep the laws up to date with the
technology to keep this precept in place: Pedophilia is such a grotesque and horrific
crime that we often overlook lack of evidence and skip right to judgement. In «at will» states, employment is often terminated
at even an accusation, especially in the case of religious or educational
institutions. Spousal abuse is another such crime. Often
the guilt of the husband will be assumed in these cases with just an
accusation and he'll spend the night in jail before being able to post bail
the next day (if he's able to post at all). This is regardless of the actual
evidence at hand. Public nudity and other «sexual crimes» that
include consensual public intercourse and public urination often result in
the offender being placed on a sexual predator list or database which is
accessible online, even if the offense was completely innocuous. Imagine
peeing on a tree and being thrown out of your house because it happens to be
within 5 miles of a school. Poor Appeals System– Without a way to appeal
the decision of a court, you are completely at the mercy of the Judge, Jury
and Lawyers you're dealing with. All too often one or more of these entities
have a prejudice, predisposition or conflict of interest, or evidence is
found that exonorates the convict, or any number of
events unfold that come to light only after the conviction. Recently you may have read about Louisiana's
appeals denial– Jarrold Peterson, an aid appointed
by Chief Judge Edward Dufresne to review appeals
request (he handled over 2400 of these cases) committed suicide. The note he
left said he killed himself because of overwhelming guilt. He said: «Dufresne
had instructed him to deny every appeal not prepared by an attorney. Peterson
said he was instructed to write up and file the denials without ever showing
the appeals to the judges» The Texas conviction overturn rate
demonstrates exactly why our appeals system needs to be better. Over 30 cases
have been overturned since 2001, including several death row cases and life
sentences. Troy Anthony Davis had seven of his 9 witnesses recant (and claim
that one of the final two was the real criminal, but he has now disappeared
and police are not looking for him), but Georgia still denied his appeal. The
11th Circuit Court of Appeals saved his life by less than three days. Appeals results are almost directly
determined by the amount of money a citizen has. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
Anyang, China – For three 1)________ and
three nights, the police wrenched Qin Yanhong's
arms high above his back, jammed his knees into a sharp metal frame, and
kicked his gut whenever he fell asleep. The 2)________
was so intense that he watched sweat pour off his face and form puddles on
the floor. On the 3)________
day, he broke down. «What color were her pants?»
they demanded. «Black», he gasped, and felt a whack on the
back of his head. «Red», he cried, and got another punch. «Blue», he ventured. The
beating stopped. This is how Mr. Qin, a 35-year-old steel
4)________ worker in Henan Province in central China, recalled groping in the
darkness of a interrogation room to deduce the «correct» details of a rape
and murder, end his torture and give the police the 5)________ they required
to close a nettlesome case. On the strength of his coerced confession
alone, prosecutors indicted Mr. Qin. A panel of judges then convicted him and
sentenced him to death. He is alive today only because of a rare twist of 6)________ that proved his innocence and forced the
authorities to let him go, though not before a final 7)________ to have him
executed anyway. Justice in China is swift but not sure.
Criminal investigations nearly always end in guilty pleas. Prosecutors 8)________ never lose cases brought to trial. But recent
disclosures of wrongful convictions like Mr. Qin's have exposed deep flaws in
a judicial system that often answers more to political leaders than the law. «Our public security system is the product
of a dictatorship», Mr. Qin wrote his family when he was on death row. «Police
use dictatorial measures on anyone who resists them. Ordinary people have no
9)________ to defend themselves». The viability of China's Communist Party
depends more than ever on its ability to 10)________
a credible legal system. The party needs the law to check corruption, which
has eroded its legitimacy. The authorities want people to turn to the courts,
rather than take to the streets, to 11)________
social discontents that have made the country more volatile than at any time
since the 1989 democracy movement. The law, in other words, has become a front
line in China's struggle to modernize under one-party rule. Yet Mr. Qin's 12)________ and similar miscarriages of justice that have
come to light this year suggest that China is struggling with a fundamental
question of jurisprudence: Do officials serve the law, or do laws serve the
officials? Or, to put it another way, is the Communist Party creating rule of
law or rule by law? Twenty-seven years after Deng Xiaoping
declared at the outset of China's economic reforms, that «the 13)________ must rely on law», the Communist Party realizes that it cannot
effectively govern a thriving market-oriented economy unless people trust in
law. Hundreds of thousands of new lawyers, stronger courts and a blizzard of
Western-inspired codes protect 14)________, enforce
contracts and limit police powers. Disgruntled 15)________,
displaced urban homeowners and newly wealthy entrepreneurs demand that the
authorities respect constitutional rights long treated as notional. Even
inside the system, some policemen, prosecutors and judges have tried making
the law into a more independent force. But the transition has been arduous, and the
outcome remains uncertain. Beijing draws the line at legal 16)________ to senior officials or important government
agencies. The courts rarely if ever rule in favor of political protesters.
Even in business cases, political influence often proves decisive. Criminal law poses one of the biggest
challenges – and most pointed sources of discontent. The police and courts
still rely 17)________ on pretrial confessions and
perfunctory court proceedings to resolve criminal cases instead of the
Western tradition of analyzing forensic evidence and determining guilt
through contentious court trials. China's criminal laws forbid torture and
require judges to weigh evidence beyond a suspect's 18)________.
But lawyers and legal scholars say forced confessions 19)________
endemic in a judicial system that faces 20)________ to maintain «social
stability» at all costs. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. ПРОБЛЕМА
КОРРУПЦИИ В СИСТЕМЕ ПРАВОСУДИЯ О коррупции в системе российского правосудия с начала судебной реформы
принято говорить как об одном из главных ее пороков. Анализируя претензии общества к судебной системе,
В. И. Полудняков в 2002 г., в бытность
председателем Санкт-Петербургского городского суда, назвал коррупцию одним из
трех главных обвинений в адрес российской судебной власти (наряду с волокитой
и «абсолютной безнаказанностью судей»), хотя настаивал на том, что в
общественном сознании масштабы коррупции в судах явно завышены(1). О
соответствии этих стереотипов действительности по имеющимся в литературных
источниках сведениям судить невозможно, поскольку обвинения в коррупции
судей, как правило, статистическими или социологическими данными не
сопровождаются. Однако если бы данные о привлечении судей к уголовной
ответственности за так называемые «коррупционные преступления» и придавались
широкой огласке, они, скорее всего, тоже были бы обречены на недоверие в
обществе, убежденном в высокой латентности этих преступлений и в
корпоративной замкнутости судебной системы. Обсуждение на страницах печати проблем коррупции вообще и в системе
правосудия особенно обычно перегружено эмоционально-ажиотажными моментами,
которые не способствуют не только решению проблемы, но даже и деловому ее
анализу. Публичная демонизация коррупции и
коррупционеров, превращение антикоррупционных
мотивов в главную составляющую всех организационных преобразований в судебной
системе чреваты не меньшими издержками для правосудия, нежели сама коррупция.
Важно понимать, что за каждым «антикоррупционным
демаршем» неизменно будут стоять субъективные интересы и устремления
конкретных людей, которые далеко не всегда совпадут с интересами и целями
правосудия. Едва ли оздоровлению российского правосудия могут способствовать
такие спровоцированные в антикоррупционном запале
меры, как тотальная электронная слежка за судьями со стороны спецслужб или
волна доносительства внутри аппаратов самих судов. Антикоррупционная
политика в системе правосудия допустима лишь до тех пор, пока она не
уничтожает собственно правосудие в общесоциальном
его понимании. Профессионализм анализа глобальной для современного российского
государства проблемы коррупции требует, как представляется, признания того,
что противодействовать коррупции должны, главным образом, не сами люди,
облеченные властью, а правовые условия их властной деятельности – правовые статусы и правовые процедуры, в
которых эта деятельность осуществляется. В Федеральном законе от 25 декабря 2008 г. № 273-Φ3 «О противодействии
коррупции» среди «мер по профилактике коррупции» названо «введение антикоррупционных стандартов, то есть установление для
соответствующей области социальной деятельности единой системы запретов,
ограничений, обязанностей и дозволений, направленных на предупреждение
коррупции» (п. 5 ст. 7). Термин «антикоррупционные
стандарты» (anticorruption standards)
достаточно широко используется в международно-правовой практике и воспринят в
современном российском законодательстве. Part 2 NO JUSTICE FOR ALL – HOW OUR CIVIL JUSTICE
SYSTEM IS FAILING AMERICANS By
Anthony V. Curto For more than fifty years, I’ve practiced
commercial law with a singular mindset: Isolate the issues and bring them to
a conclusion, swiftly and judiciously. But despite this day-to-day
philosophy, I’ve come to a troubling conclusion. The civil justice system
today – whether dealing with simple or complex matters – takes so long and
costs so much that it no longer serves as an effective tool in regulating
society’s legal matters. In the end, the system has become so dysfunctional
that it’s virtually impossible for the average person to rely on it as a
means of resolving disputes. The problem is not with our basic democratic
principles. Over the years, the American legal system has evolved according
to the will of its people, ensuring continuous moral and lawful equality. But
the administration of the law has not evolved fast enough to match the needs
of a culture driven by accelerating technological change. Today, our courts are mired in delay, bogged
down with tens of thousands of cases. Lawsuits often take years, cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars, drain us psychologically and produce
outcomes that no one can predict. Day by day, with each legal experience,
people are losing confidence in our system’s ability to deliver justice. All of these problems relate to time: Time
is the enemy. Time is money and frustration that blunts the moral imperative
of any court attempting to dispense justice. The old saying, «Justice delayed
is justice denied», is more than an axiomatic statement.
It has a deep and abiding meaning for our civilization. Still, there are ways the legal system can
not only be fixed, but substantially improved. For instance, we can require that the same
judge be assigned each case, from beginning to end. Facing a different judge
at each legal appearance de-personalizes all judges. Judges must be seen as a
people, not anonymous manikins in black robes; they should not appear remote;
they belong in the case. Judges who follow a case to its conclusion
would be able to learn much more about litigants’ motives. Deliberate
stalling by either party would be more difficult, since it’s harder to do so
in person than on paper – particularly when facing the same judge at every
session. For their part, judges would have more
opportunities to develop a sincere interest in the fair resolution of each
case, and litigants, in turn, would likely sense the judge’s true interest. Furthermore, much less paperwork and time
would likely be wasted on painstaking analysis, passed from court to court. Some other examples of «time-killing»
methods: • Streamline pretrial paperwork, eliminating
the endless exchange of written bills and motions. Discussions could take
place in front of a judge, with clarifications and questions addressed until
they’re mutually understood and settled. • Require plaintiffs to pay expenses if an
appeal is lost. Everyone deserves a fair trial, but if a plaintiff loses a
case and appeals, then he or she should pay the defendant’s expenses accrued
beyond the trial. Under this procedure, a malicious plaintiff could no longer
prolong a suit without personal risk. • Bar contingency fees. Many litigants
choose a contingency deal with their attorney because it appears cheaper;
they don’t have to put any money up front. But the real solution is to strip
time out of the legal system, so litigation requires less money and people
would be less pressured to gamble on their lawyer’s success. • Require litigants to attend their
pre-trial procedures. Today, few litigants go to court with their lawyers,
often because the cases are confusing and time-consuming. But the courts were
meant for ordinary people; plaintiff and defendant must be made to feel that
justice is in their hands, too. • Expand the role of magistrates. Thousands
of these appointed lawyers already assist federal district court judges who
cut the judicial caseload by performing various duties. An expansion of the
Magistrate Judge System is long overdue. These are just a few possible «time fixes»
to improve our civil justice system. And fix the system we must, for if we
fail, we risk losing our hard-won legacy system of swift and accessible
justice. And given that almost all business interactions have legal
components, such a loss of access would constitute a fatal blow to a just and
moral society. Time, indeed, is of the essence. Before some
dreadful hour, we must reestablish a base of support for our legal system to
reflect the good in its people, rather than their defiance. Through our mastery
of time, the judicial system would derive great strength, ensuring future
generations of Americans of their freedom. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
The 1)__________
system in Cambodia requires the strong enforcement of the law. This means
that the rule of law in Cambodia is not 2)__________
enough to control the society in order. People who are powerful are not
afraid to do something 3)__________, for when they
face any problem, they use their money to help them. In addition, the lack of
knowledge of law of Khmer 4)__________ is also
providing some disadvantages the 5)__________ implementation of law. For
instance, when a person does something wrong, sometimes he or she does not
know that it is against the 6)__________, and it
easy also for the court to cheat on them. The lack of getting the information from
authority also has some bad effects for Khmer citizen. The local 7)__________ seems serve the interest of the people who
have money to corrupt them. In practice, when we face a problem and 8)__________ the help from the authority, we must have some
money to pay for them. In addition, the lack of understanding between 9)__________ also provides a lot of issues in the society,
and the issue sometimes is solved with violent act. Besides this, the local
authority seems ignore with the social problem. They serve only something
that 10)__________ the interest for them. The
morality of their professional mostly is not acceptable. For instance, the
official who works in some ministry or departments is so rude when we need
something to be helped. In addition, Constitution of Cambodia states
that all Khmer citizens have equal rights, and their rights are protected by
the Constitution. However, in practice, the 11)__________
people are still superior to normal people. This issue needs strong commitment
of the government to settle more 12)__________. The
government should pay more attention to reform this system in order to
balance the isolation of right of the citizen in the society. In my 13)__________
of view, all of these issues can be solved with the reform of the whole
system. First, the judicial system needs to be reformed from the top to
bottom. The independence of the court should be improved. There should be 14)__________ punishment to the court 15)__________ when he
or she works against his or her professional. In addition, our legal system
should be 16)__________ more efficiently. The
quality of implementing the law by the legal officer should be better than
this. Moreover, the law on 17)__________ must be
enforced more effectively; the power or influence of the top leaders should
be more 18)__________ from the judicial branch. The legal 19)__________ in our education system should be stronger,
and the quality of the law should be more debatable during the process of
making. For example, as we know, most of the law in 20)__________
by the Council of Ministers. This indicates that most laws serve the interest
for the government like the law on corruption spends very long time to make,
for this law will provide a lot of bad 21)__________ for the government. In
22)__________, during the debate of law in the
National Assembly, the opinion or advice of the members of the 23)__________
is rarely taken for consideration. Therefore, the imbalance of power in law
making provides the imbalance of power in the democratic process in Cambodia.
3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. ПРАВОСУДИЕ
В РОССИИ И СИСТЕМНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ В силу особенностей развития нашего государства его правоохранительные
структуры не всегда и не во всем контролировались даже верховной властью, в
иные эпохи становясь влиятельной политической силой.
Традиционные для средневековья приемы «производства истины», сводящиеся к
широкому использованию агентуры и выколачиванию признаний, так называемому
розыску, в России практиковались дольше, чем в других европейских странах. Традиция средневекового следствия и суда, успешно изжитая страной
в конце XIX в., была во многом возрождена после 1917 г. Но и сегодня, уже
после изменения общественного строя и проведения соответствующих реформ,
судам и правоохранительным органам не удается избавиться от обвинительного
уклона. Стереотип обвинительного уклона в деятельности судов, нередко
закрывающих глаза на недобросовестную подготовку дел, на фальсификацию
доказательств обвинения органами дознания и следствия, превращает суды, по
сути, в одну из правоохранительных структур. Отсюда и более широкие,
системные проблемы всей сферы юстиции: от переполненности следственных
изоляторов и тюрем до большого числа следственных и судебных ошибок. При правосудии, ограничивающем вынесение оправдательных приговоров,
качество предварительного расследования не может быть обеспечено в принципе.
Ведь даже уголовные дела, в которых полностью отсутствует доказательственная
база в отношении обвиняемого, «успешно» рассматриваются судами и завершаются
обвинительными приговорами, правда, иногда с назначением относительно мягкого
наказания. В результате компетентность следствия и дознания, качество
расследования уголовных дел катастрофически падают. Одним из свидетельств этому служит тот факт, что органы уголовного
преследования нередко прибегают к неправовому
доказыванию, т.е. обоснованию обвинения ненадлежащим образом собранными,
неполноценными доказательствами. Для этого они, в частности, используют экспертные
заключения, полученные от профессионально некомпетентных лиц. При наличии
большого числа государственных экспертных учреждений, которые бесплатно
проводят для органов следствия и суда исследования, следственные органы и суд
обращаются в негосударственные экспертные учреждения или даже в учреждения,
не являющиеся экспертными, поручая исследования лицам, не имеющим ни
необходимого специального образования, ни подготовки в области конкретной
судебно-экспертной деятельности. Например, назначая психолого-лингвистическую
экспертизу, исследование поручают не филологу или психологу, а математику,
занимающемуся на основной работе «общими вопросами» и не имеющему ни одной
публикации, связанной с филологией или психологией. Из таких «экспертов»
создаются целые «бригады», услуги которых весьма востребованы, поскольку в
силу своей некомпетентности они легко управляемы. Известно немало дел, по
которым на основании необоснованных экспертных заключений постановлены
обвинительные приговоры. Получает все более широкое распространение практика обоснования решений
следственных и судебных органов, в том числе о применении меры пресечения в
виде заключения под стражу и о продлении срока содержания под стражей
обвиняемых, результатами оперативно-розыскной деятельности, например
справками оперуполномоченных («имеются сведения, что, оставаясь на свободе,
обвиняемый может скрыться»; «имеются сведения, что, оставаясь на свободе,
обвиняемый может уничтожить доказательства и помешать расследованию»).
Заявления стороны защиты по поводу того, что подобные справки и их содержание
не отвечают требованиям, предъявляемым к доказательствам УПК РФ, так как не
проверены путем производства следственных действий в установленном законом
порядке, во внимание не принимаются. Все чаще следственные и судебные органы, в нарушение ч.
2 ст. 75 УПК РФ, обосновывают свои решения показаниями свидетеля,
базирующимися на предположении, или показаниями свидетеля, который не может
указать источник своей осведомленности («мне кажется, что за мной кто-то
следит, и я думаю, что это люди обвиняемого»; «я точно знаю, что обвиняемый
может уничтожить доказательства и скрыться, но не могу сказать, откуда мне
это известно»). Случаи, когда подозреваемые в совершении преступления попросту «назначены»
сотрудником правоохранительной структуры, проводящим предварительное
расследование, к сожалению, не редкость. Part 3 «SLOW, EXPENSIVE, COMPLICATED»
LEGAL SYSTEM MUST BE IMPROVED Half of all Australians will experience a
legal problem this year. Most won’t get legal assistance or come into contact
with our courts or other legal institutions. In part, this is because
Australia’s legal system is «too slow, expensive and hard to understand». This was a key finding of the Productivity
Commission’s draft report of its inquiry into access to justice, released
this week. The 891-page report seeks feedback on a
number of findings and recommendations to improve access to justice. But why
are they needed? And are the recommendations practical? In 2008, NSW’s Law and Justice Foundation
randomly surveyed over 20,000 Australians about their legal problems. The
findings, published in a series of reports in 2012, identified that almost
half of respondents experienced a legal problem in the last year. But legal
problems are concentrated in a small group of people: around 10% of people
account for more than half of these problems. This research also indicated that people’s
social circumstances contribute to their experience of legal problems. In
medical parlance, these are gaining prominence as «social determinants of
health». Similarities exist with the social determinants of legal problems. The research found that people with a
disability, single parents, unemployed people and recipients of social
security payments, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people
from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are more likely to
have legal problems. However, most people are unable to access
legal assistance. This is because they don’t know where to turn or it is too
expensive. The Productivity Commission examined these barriers, among other
issues focused on increasing access to justice and reducing costs for the
public and governments. Australia’s system of civil dispute
resolution, with a focus on constraining costs and promoting access to
justice and equality before the law. The costs issue is vital. The Australian
government spends over A$700 million each year on its own legal advice and
representation. It is the largest consumer of legal services and is
particularly interested in systemic reforms that could reduce this amount.
Businesses also complain about the cost of lawyers. The commission considers these issues in
detail. Its report has recommendations to increase access to alternative
dispute resolution, further improve clarity in costs disclosures (a
consistent complaint levelled at lawyers), increase
competition and reduce regulation of lawyers, and improve access to ombudsmen
and lower-level tribunals. Generally, these are positive reforms that
will increase consumer confidence in the legal system. Some may be opposed by
the profession and their professional bodies, including increasing access for
professional indemnity insurance and allowing solicitors to advertise more
and accept cases on the basis of recovering a percentage of clients’ monetary
compensation. These are difficult issues for the legal
profession to embrace. They will require significant and thoughtful
development by policymakers, legal institutions and the profession if they
are to be implemented and be effective. Australia has four «pillars» of
government-funded legal assistance: legal aid commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal
services, and Aboriginal family violence prevention legal assistance
services. The legal profession also provides significant volunteer and pro
bono assistance to people. While the review of the National Partnership
Agreement on Legal Assistance Services has sat on the desks of federal
attorneys-general Mark Drefyus and then George Brandis for almost a year, the Productivity Commission
has examined the operation of these services, and noted their important role
in providing people with free legal assistance. It has called for additional
resources and better co-ordination of activities. The commission has also identified that
Indigenous Australians are particularly vulnerable to legal problems and
require culturally appropriate legal services from specialist experts. Its
suggested changes include recognising the increased
costs required to meet legal need in remote communities, clarifying targets,
benchmarking services performance and additional state/territory government
funding in this area. The report identifies the limitations of pro
bono work, which should not be used as a «band-aid» for an underfunded legal
assistance program. The commission is looking for ways to increase private
lawyers’ capacity to provide assistance. Other ideas, like a HECS-type scheme for
legal expenses, have no future and are likely to be removed from the final
report. Individuals and organisations
are invited to respond to the Productivity Commission’s draft report or
appear at public hearings to discuss the issues raised in the discussion
paper, before a final report is provided to the government in September 2014. Many of the recommended improvements to
Australia’s civil justice system are unlikely to be achieved in the current
political and fiscal environment. However, underinvestment in our legal
structures and services – a cornerstone of our democratic system – comes at
significant social and economic costs. We should continue to agitate for fairer,
cheaper and more just legal systems. The Productivity Commission’s report
provides some useful suggestions to improve the system and is a good basis
for more discussion among policymakers, service providers and the community. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
The 1)_________
problem in the judicial system of Cambodia is in the Court of the First
Instance or Provincial Municipal Court. All of the 2)_________
cases must go to this court first, and the main problem also happens in this
court. As we see in the real 3)_________, the cases
that involve with the influential person seem usually bias and injustice. The
rich or influential people usually win the cases even though they do not
provide anything to any 4)_________ of the court.
For instance, any cases that have bad affects to the top leaders in the 5)_________, the court does not take that case to consider
and find the solution. As in recently, case between a member of the
parliament and the opposition party member with the prime minister, the
6)_________ does not take the case that the member of the opposition file
against the prime minister to consider, but the court take the case that the
prime minister files against her. In addition, the 7)_________
that is the current issue in the society also affects the judicial system. As
we know, the poor rarely win the case when there is any problem with the
rich. The main 8)_________ of this issue is from the
lack of independence of the court and the lack of serious punishment. By seeing
in the rules in the Supreme Council of Magistracy, no judges or prosecutors
were 9)_________ from their jobs or positions. So
the judges or any other members of the court are not afraid to do any
corruption. Moreover, the lack of morality of the judges or prosecutors in
their field also affects the 10)_________ of the
court in Cambodia. For example, some judges even though he or she is so rich
with a high quality of 11)_________, they still do
corruption in their job without respect the principle of morality in their
professional. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. Мировая практика функционирования судов присяжных однозначно
свидетельствует о том, что это одна из наиболее совершенных форм отправления
правосудия, позволяющая с большей долей вероятности установить истину по делу
и добиться его справедливого исхода. Суды присяжных функционируют теперь и в
России, рассматривая наиболее тяжкие преступления, за которые предусмотрено в том числе пожизненное лишение свободы. При
этом нареканий к работе этих судов не то чтобы меньше, а
наоборот – во многих случаях даже
больше, чем к работе профессионального суда. Казалось бы, 12 независимых людей, не связанных никак с
правоохранительной системой и соответственно свободных от всех ее пороков,
должны более качественно рассматривать дела, разрешая
прежде всего проблемы «факта». По своему статусу суды присяжных должны
оставаться безразличными к разного рода процессуальным ухищрениям и нарушениями как со стороны прокуроров, так и выступающих
на другой стороне адвокатов. Но на практике это получается далеко не всегда. Говоря об уголовной юстиции в современных российских судах, нужно
всегда иметь в виду, что в действительности начиная от лейтенанта полиции или
оперативника ФСБ, занятого тем или иным делом на начальной стадии
расследования, до следователя и прокурора и, наконец, судьи, принявшего дело
к рассмотрению, – все преследуют
единую цель: получить обвинительный приговор. Только такое завершение
уголовного дела рассматривается правоохранительной системой как единственно
возможное и допустимое. Но в таком случае возникает закономерный вопрос: а есть ли у нас в
стране такая ветвь власти, как судебная? Или она стала считаться с некоторых
пор всего лишь ответвлением от исполнительных органов власти? Оправдание человека расценивается как событие чрезвычайного характера и
всегда влечет крайне неблагоприятные последствия, чаще всего увольнение, для
всех правоохранителей, принимавших участие в уголовном деле. Именно поэтому
оперативник и следователь, прокурор и судья (а среди судей преобладают, к
сожалению, бывшие силовики) кровно заинтересованы в обвинительном исходе
дела, делают для этого все возможное – от давления на свидетелей до откровенных
фальсификаций доказательств – ради
принятия неправосудных решений. В этой связи ключевое значение приобретает вопрос о том, кем будут эти
12 человек в коллегии присяжных заседателей, возможно ли на них оказывать
давление со стороны прокуроров или работников полиции, сотрудников ФСБ или
ангажированных судей. К сожалению, существующая практика работы судов
присяжных у нас в России делает этот вопрос риторическим. |