Personal Analysis of The Civil Law Court Setting and Procedure in Manchester

The report on courtroom observation concentrates on perceptions from a civil law court which is located at the new justice building in Manchester. The passageway of the building was imposing. The security guards directed me to the court. The first thing I thought when before entering the courtroom was that it was not crowded with judges and police to also the offenders. The design of the court was straightforward and there was no presence of police compared to my expectations. The proceedings started at around 9:20 am and it took a period of approximately 3 hours. The case involved a claim by the one party and a counter claim from the other. The claim was made on the grounds that the defendant neglected to follow the traffic rules while he was driving causing the accident. The counterclaim was made by the on for demand harm as the litigant courtroom his leg and his lower back when the crash happened. In any case, as I have found in the court the two cases were inspected at the same time by the judge keeping in mind the end goal to spare time. The normal approach is usually to solve one case and a time and a counter case are also analyzed independently. However, in order to avoid wasting time on two related claims, the judge examines the two cases simultaneously.

In the wake of going into the courtroom, I sat at the back, where public sits, facing the judge seat at the flip side of the room. Before me, on the left side, there was the claimant with his lawyer while the advocator sat in front of them sitting on a separate layer. On the other side was the defendant with his attorney in front of him. A few minutes before 9 o'clock, most of the people outside the building meandered inside to take their seats. The judge took the bench at around 9:30 am and started the proceedings by calling the claimant to the witness stand. The claimant said that he had stopped his car toward the finish of the left side of the road and went to the shops close-by. Subsequent to going to the shop, she returned to his car and attempted to drive back to the right side of the road. Nonetheless, he said that when he attempting to go to the right side of the road he didn't see the defendant’s car on time which was passing which lead to the collision. After claimant disclosed to the court, the two advocators asked him questions related to the episode that prompt the accident. The defendant was later called to the testimony box. He clarified that he was driving across the road when the offender's car came to his driving side of the street without signs which brought about the crash. He additionally disclosed that he attempted to evade the defendant's car, but it was already too late. At that point, the petitioner's attorney demanded that he passed wrongfully from the Pelican crossing few meters far from the occurrence. The defendant denied that. Additionally, another imperative discussion was that on the witness articulation where he said that he broke his leg and the accident also caused a damage at his back.

The defendant’s dad in law was also called to the witness box as he was the co-driver at the time of the occurrence. The judge and the offended party attempted to see whether the litigant and his dad in law had until the end of time discussing the occurrence or simply the evidence. He addressed contrarily although he seemed confused. Toward the finish of the trial the judge outlined all the facts and the presented evidence during the proceedings and gave his last judgment that the episode's expenses will be partitioned into 50% to each. He also concluded that the defendant was to cover the trial's expenses

One of the observations that I made during my visit to the courtroom was that one conceivable certainty that can easily discourage the parties from asserting is the round of questioning that they need to go through amid the case procedures. Cases in the court can be exceptionally conceivable to lay people. Indeed, every one of the legal counselors reacted well when called upon to speak. Furthermore, they were re-expressing the inquiries that were not clearly understood by the witnesses while they were questioning them. A reality that astounded me was that when that the case goes to the County Court, there is no doubt of statutory translation or matter of law. As observed from the case it was only a self-evident certainty rather be based on the legal point of reference.

Another observation was that all lawyers present during the court proceedings could easily present their lawful skills and abilities. Legitimate aptitudes allude to powerful research, correspondence and organization abilities. Besides, all present parties appeared to be well prepared. Another critical perception was the part of the lawyers and solicitors. The barrister had a role of presenting the case to the judge and the whole courtroom and the solicitor’s role was to do the fundamental body of the work. Despite the fact that specialists have the privilege to talk in the courtroom, there were a couple examples in which the attorney would allude to the specialist inquiring as to whether every one of the focuses had been left out or if there were further focuses that they felt important to examine. The element that astonished me the most from my visit to the courtroom was the minimum utilization of precedent. The English law framework is one of precedent-based law, which proposes that much accentuation is put on the points of reference and case law.

From my observation, the atmosphere during the preceding was solemn but during the cross-examination, the air ended up noticeably tense. A discussion is usually involved during such cases. This is on account of there is a great deal of dialog between the judge and the advocates and a judge depends intensely on the help of counsel in achieving his decision on the issues. One can state that the judge counsels the attorneys before settling on a specific issue for the situation. Therefore, the attorneys are intensely engaged with the judge on the issues for the situation

Furthermore, court rules protocol demands that counselors maintain and conduct themselves with the utmost politeness and respect while addressing questions from the judge and other parties. There are times obviously whereby attorneys take part in a more forceful position, utilizing a higher tone to stress a point or test a witness' proof. However, this is done at extremely completely controlled way. I can subsequently conclude that the courtroom has a great deal of elegance to it and a skillful lawyer knows the planning regarding when he ought to talk with more hostility and when to tone down in helping the judge achieve a right judgment.