# Comparative essay on topic adveresial vs inquistorial legal system
## Introduction
Legal systems around the world have developed different procedures for administering justice, which can be broadly categorised into two main models: the adversarial and the inquisitorial system. The adversarial system, used in common law jurisdictions like England and Wales, frames a legal dispute as a contest between two opposing sides. In contrast, the inquisitorial system, prevalent in civil law countries such as France, views a legal dispute as an inquiry to be investigated by the state. This essay will compare these two systems by examining the different roles of the judiciary and legal representatives, the process of evidence gathering, and the underlying aims of each system. It will suggest that while they are founded on different principles, there are signs of convergence between them.
## The Roles of the Judge and the Parties
A primary distinction between the two systems lies in the function of the judge and the level of control given to the parties. In the adversarial system of England and Wales, the trial process is controlled by the opposing parties. Each side is responsible for investigating the facts and presenting the evidence and arguments that support their case. The judge acts as a neutral umpire, ensuring that the procedural rules are followed and that the ‘battle’ between the parties is conducted fairly. The judge’s role is largely passive; they do not conduct their own investigation but rule on the evidence and arguments presented to them (Jolowicz, 1975). This is based on the idea that the truth is most likely to emerge from the clash of two competing versions of events, presented by advocates committed to their client’s case.
Conversely, the inquisitorial system is characterised by the active role of the judiciary. The central figure is often an investigating judge (in France, the *juge d’instruction*) who directs the pre-trial investigation. This judge has the responsibility to gather all relevant evidence, both for and against the accused, in order to establish the truth. They will examine evidence, question witnesses, and compile a comprehensive file, or *dossier*, which forms the basis of the trial (Dammer and Albanese, 2014). Lawyers in this system have a different role; rather than controlling the proceedings, they assist the judge’s inquiry and ensure that the rights of their client are upheld throughout the process.
## The Gathering and Presentation of Evidence
The different roles of the participants lead to contrasting approaches to evidence. The adversarial trial is a key event where evidence is presented orally through witnesses, who are subject to examination-in-chief by their own side and cross-examination by the opposition. Cross-examination is seen as a crucial tool for testing the reliability and truthfulness of evidence. Due to the use of lay juries in many serious criminal cases, there are strict rules of admissibility to prevent jurors from being influenced by evidence deemed prejudicial or unreliable, such as hearsay.
In the inquisitorial system, the focus is on the creation of the *dossier* during the pre-trial investigative phase. Evidence is collected and recorded in written form by the investigating judge. The trial itself is often a more straightforward verification of the dossier, where the presiding judge or judges review the written evidence and ask questions of the defendant and witnesses to clarify points. There are fewer exclusionary rules of evidence, as the professional judges who decide the case are considered capable of assessing the weight and relevance of all information gathered (Vogler, 2008). The trial is therefore less of a dramatic event and more the culmination of a lengthy and thorough investigation.
## Conclusion
In summary, the adversarial and inquisitorial systems represent two distinct philosophical approaches to achieving justice. The adversarial model relies on a contest between two parties with a passive judge, emphasising procedural fairness and oral evidence tested through cross-examination. The inquisitorial model, by contrast, tasks an active judge with conducting an inquiry to uncover the truth, relying heavily on a written record of pre-trial investigation. Both systems have their perceived strengths and weaknesses. The adversarial system is sometimes criticised for favouring the party with better resources, while the inquisitorial system can be seen as giving too much power to the state. However, it is important to note that these pure models are becoming less distinct. For instance, the introduction of more active case management by judges in civil litigation in England and Wales shows a move towards a more inquisitorial style, suggesting that many modern legal systems are becoming hybridised by borrowing elements from each other.
## References
- Dammer, H. R. and Albanese, J. S. (2014) Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. 5th ed. Cengage Learning.
- Jolowicz, J. A. (1975) ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 24(2), pp. 280-295.
- Vogler, R. (2008) ‘Criminal Procedure in Europe’, in: Reichel, P. L. (ed.) Handbook of Transnational Crime & Justice. SAGE Publications.
