On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:02:33 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>
>>The unaffected parts of RTN are subject to a French judicial enquiry, and so 
>>no access is available to them until the Juge d' Instruction (roughly 
>>equivalent to the DA in the States or the DPP in the UK) decides that there 
>>is no pertinent evidence in them.
>
>
>There is no equivalent to the Juge d'Instruction in English Law.  In
>Scottish Law there is a close equivalent called the Procurator Fiscal.
>
>The best term to represent the job the Juge d'Instruction does is that
>of "Investigating Magistrate".  Unlike the DPP, an Investigating
>Magistrate has the power to make his own investigations, independently
>of any police force if he sees fit.
>
>{No doubt Charles Ellson will be along soon to correct my mistakes.]
>
I'm not familiar with the French version but your general description
seems to fit my vague understanding that a French investigating
magistrate is to some extent comparable to a PF but with the power to
do his own compelling when necessary (IMU a PF can only "invite"
someone to assist him where there is no duty to do so and has to leave
compulsion to the courts and the police BICBW). According to the
"Inquisitorial system" article in Wikipedia only a small proportion of
French offences are actually dealt with by investigating magistrates,
being the more serious or complex cases; OTOH all public prosecutions
in Scotland are subject to approval by the Procurator Fiscal (if I'm
reading the instructions correctly, the Lord Advocate is also involved
in murder and rape prosecutions). Private prosecutions are extremely
rare and dealt with differently.

"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
news:g40pc4df3k759b2nfvdepnpvq0iibr9lpg@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:02:33 +0100, Tony Polson
>  wrote:
>
>>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>>
>>>The unaffected parts of RTN are subject to a French judicial enquiry, and 
>>>so
>>>no access is available to them until the Juge d' Instruction (roughly
>>>equivalent to the DA in the States or the DPP in the UK) decides that 
>>>there
>>>is no pertinent evidence in them.
>>
>>
>>There is no equivalent to the Juge d'Instruction in English Law.  In
>>Scottish Law there is a close equivalent called the Procurator Fiscal.
>>
>>The best term to represent the job the Juge d'Instruction does is that
>>of "Investigating Magistrate".  Unlike the DPP, an Investigating
>>Magistrate has the power to make his own investigations, independently
>>of any police force if he sees fit.
>>
>>{No doubt Charles Ellson will be along soon to correct my mistakes.]
>>
> I'm not familiar with the French version but your general description
> seems to fit my vague understanding that a French investigating
> magistrate is to some extent comparable to a PF but with the power to
> do his own compelling when necessary (IMU a PF can only "invite"
> someone to assist him where there is no duty to do so and has to leave
> compulsion to the courts and the police BICBW). According to the
> "Inquisitorial system" article in Wikipedia only a small proportion of
> French offences are actually dealt with by investigating magistrates,
> being the more serious or complex cases; OTOH all public prosecutions
> in Scotland are subject to approval by the Procurator Fiscal (if I'm
> reading the instructions correctly, the Lord Advocate is also involved
> in murder and rape prosecutions). Private prosecutions are extremely
> rare and dealt with differently.
I suspect the J d'I is involved in almost all cases, but in the majority of 
cases need only take the evidence the police have amassed and 
sanction/dismiss formal prosecution. He or she only seems to have a lead 
role in serious or high-profile cases.
The post is a highly-political one, and J d'I decisions about prosecutions 
have been subject to serious public criticism in recent times (far more 
widespread than in England and Wales for example, where there may be 
complaints about 'an out-of-touch' judiciary, but rarely stong personal 
attacks upon a particular judge)- try Googling 'Outreau' for some idea about 
the furore raised by a controversial case of recent years in the Boulogne 
region.
The idea of the Juge d'Instruction, Procurator Fiscal, and the magistrature 
in countries such as Italy seems to derive directly from that of the Roman 
magistrates, whereas that in England and Wales derives from another model- I 
wonder what it might be?
Brian

"BH Williams"  wrote:

>
>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>news:g40pc4df3k759b2nfvdepnpvq0iibr9lpg@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:02:33 +0100, Tony Polson
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>The unaffected parts of RTN are subject to a French judicial enquiry, and 
>>>>so
>>>>no access is available to them until the Juge d' Instruction (roughly
>>>>equivalent to the DA in the States or the DPP in the UK) decides that 
>>>>there
>>>>is no pertinent evidence in them.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no equivalent to the Juge d'Instruction in English Law.  In
>>>Scottish Law there is a close equivalent called the Procurator Fiscal.
>>>
>>>The best term to represent the job the Juge d'Instruction does is that
>>>of "Investigating Magistrate".  Unlike the DPP, an Investigating
>>>Magistrate has the power to make his own investigations, independently
>>>of any police force if he sees fit.
>>>
>>>{No doubt Charles Ellson will be along soon to correct my mistakes.]
>>>
>> I'm not familiar with the French version but your general description
>> seems to fit my vague understanding that a French investigating
>> magistrate is to some extent comparable to a PF but with the power to
>> do his own compelling when necessary (IMU a PF can only "invite"
>> someone to assist him where there is no duty to do so and has to leave
>> compulsion to the courts and the police BICBW). According to the
>> "Inquisitorial system" article in Wikipedia only a small proportion of
>> French offences are actually dealt with by investigating magistrates,
>> being the more serious or complex cases; OTOH all public prosecutions
>> in Scotland are subject to approval by the Procurator Fiscal (if I'm
>> reading the instructions correctly, the Lord Advocate is also involved
>> in murder and rape prosecutions). Private prosecutions are extremely
>> rare and dealt with differently.
>I suspect the J d'I is involved in almost all cases, but in the majority of 
>cases need only take the evidence the police have amassed and 
>sanction/dismiss formal prosecution. He or she only seems to have a lead 
>role in serious or high-profile cases.
>The post is a highly-political one, and J d'I decisions about prosecutions 
>have been subject to serious public criticism in recent times (far more 
>widespread than in England and Wales for example, where there may be 
>complaints about 'an out-of-touch' judiciary, but rarely stong personal 
>attacks upon a particular judge)- try Googling 'Outreau' for some idea about 
>the furore raised by a controversial case of recent years in the Boulogne 
>region.


In England, personal attacks on individual judges are very common
where their sentencing appears bizarre, usually over-lenient. 


>The idea of the Juge d'Instruction, Procurator Fiscal, and the magistrature 
>in countries such as Italy seems to derive directly from that of the Roman 
>magistrates, whereas that in England and Wales derives from another model- I 
>wonder what it might be?


I think it's the fundamental difference of principle between Roman
Law, where the opinions of appointed legal experts hold sway, and
Common Law, where the opinion of a jury drawn from the people is
sacrosanct.

I'm sure Charles will be able to express it far better.  ;-)

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:23:14 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>>news:g40pc4df3k759b2nfvdepnpvq0iibr9lpg@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:02:33 +0100, Tony Polson
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The unaffected parts of RTN are subject to a French judicial enquiry, and 
>>>>>so
>>>>>no access is available to them until the Juge d' Instruction (roughly
>>>>>equivalent to the DA in the States or the DPP in the UK) decides that 
>>>>>there
>>>>>is no pertinent evidence in them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is no equivalent to the Juge d'Instruction in English Law.  In
>>>>Scottish Law there is a close equivalent called the Procurator Fiscal.
>>>>
>>>>The best term to represent the job the Juge d'Instruction does is that
>>>>of "Investigating Magistrate".  Unlike the DPP, an Investigating
>>>>Magistrate has the power to make his own investigations, independently
>>>>of any police force if he sees fit.
>>>>
>>>>{No doubt Charles Ellson will be along soon to correct my mistakes.]
>>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with the French version but your general description
>>> seems to fit my vague understanding that a French investigating
>>> magistrate is to some extent comparable to a PF but with the power to
>>> do his own compelling when necessary (IMU a PF can only "invite"
>>> someone to assist him where there is no duty to do so and has to leave
>>> compulsion to the courts and the police BICBW). According to the
>>> "Inquisitorial system" article in Wikipedia only a small proportion of
>>> French offences are actually dealt with by investigating magistrates,
>>> being the more serious or complex cases; OTOH all public prosecutions
>>> in Scotland are subject to approval by the Procurator Fiscal (if I'm
>>> reading the instructions correctly, the Lord Advocate is also involved
>>> in murder and rape prosecutions). Private prosecutions are extremely
>>> rare and dealt with differently.
>>I suspect the J d'I is involved in almost all cases, but in the majority of 
>>cases need only take the evidence the police have amassed and 
>>sanction/dismiss formal prosecution. He or she only seems to have a lead 
>>role in serious or high-profile cases.
>>The post is a highly-political one, and J d'I decisions about prosecutions 
>>have been subject to serious public criticism in recent times (far more 
>>widespread than in England and Wales for example, where there may be 
>>complaints about 'an out-of-touch' judiciary, but rarely stong personal 
>>attacks upon a particular judge)- try Googling 'Outreau' for some idea about 
>>the furore raised by a controversial case of recent years in the Boulogne 
>>region.
>
>
>In England, personal attacks on individual judges are very common
>where their sentencing appears bizarre, usually over-lenient. 
>
>
>>The idea of the Juge d'Instruction, Procurator Fiscal, and the magistrature 
>>in countries such as Italy seems to derive directly from that of the Roman 
>>magistrates, whereas that in England and Wales derives from another model- I 
>>wonder what it might be?
>
>I think it's the fundamental difference of principle between Roman
>Law, where the opinions of appointed legal experts hold sway, and
>Common Law, where the opinion of a jury drawn from the people is
>sacrosanct.
>
>I'm sure Charles will be able to express it far better.  ;-)
>
I would have described the investigating magistrate/procurator
fiscal/other types of prosecutor as more a variation in the method of
administration of the law rather than in the principles of the law.
The Romans seem to feature somewhere in the background of most legal
systems worldwide, the influence depending on who has invaded whom or
where various legal systems have borrowed from and how each system has
developed over the years. The main difference with France IMU is that
it has a codified system of law and the opportunity for judges to
"make it up as they go" (as required within the limits applicable) is
not the same as in a system which is not restricted to codes/statutes.
IMU the "common" in "Common Law" derives from the element of
uniformity rather than involvement of the common people; the judges
have to confine themselves to legal principles and/or decisions but
juries don't.

Charles Ellson  wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:23:14 +0100, Tony Polson
> wrote:
>
>>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>>>news:g40pc4df3k759b2nfvdepnpvq0iibr9lpg@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:02:33 +0100, Tony Polson
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The unaffected parts of RTN are subject to a French judicial enquiry, and 
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>no access is available to them until the Juge d' Instruction (roughly
>>>>>>equivalent to the DA in the States or the DPP in the UK) decides that 
>>>>>>there
>>>>>>is no pertinent evidence in them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no equivalent to the Juge d'Instruction in English Law.  In
>>>>>Scottish Law there is a close equivalent called the Procurator Fiscal.
>>>>>
>>>>>The best term to represent the job the Juge d'Instruction does is that
>>>>>of "Investigating Magistrate".  Unlike the DPP, an Investigating
>>>>>Magistrate has the power to make his own investigations, independently
>>>>>of any police force if he sees fit.
>>>>>
>>>>>{No doubt Charles Ellson will be along soon to correct my mistakes.]
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with the French version but your general description
>>>> seems to fit my vague understanding that a French investigating
>>>> magistrate is to some extent comparable to a PF but with the power to
>>>> do his own compelling when necessary (IMU a PF can only "invite"
>>>> someone to assist him where there is no duty to do so and has to leave
>>>> compulsion to the courts and the police BICBW). According to the
>>>> "Inquisitorial system" article in Wikipedia only a small proportion of
>>>> French offences are actually dealt with by investigating magistrates,
>>>> being the more serious or complex cases; OTOH all public prosecutions
>>>> in Scotland are subject to approval by the Procurator Fiscal (if I'm
>>>> reading the instructions correctly, the Lord Advocate is also involved
>>>> in murder and rape prosecutions). Private prosecutions are extremely
>>>> rare and dealt with differently.
>>>I suspect the J d'I is involved in almost all cases, but in the majority of 
>>>cases need only take the evidence the police have amassed and 
>>>sanction/dismiss formal prosecution. He or she only seems to have a lead 
>>>role in serious or high-profile cases.
>>>The post is a highly-political one, and J d'I decisions about prosecutions 
>>>have been subject to serious public criticism in recent times (far more 
>>>widespread than in England and Wales for example, where there may be 
>>>complaints about 'an out-of-touch' judiciary, but rarely stong personal 
>>>attacks upon a particular judge)- try Googling 'Outreau' for some idea about 
>>>the furore raised by a controversial case of recent years in the Boulogne 
>>>region.
>>
>>
>>In England, personal attacks on individual judges are very common
>>where their sentencing appears bizarre, usually over-lenient. 
>>
>>
>>>The idea of the Juge d'Instruction, Procurator Fiscal, and the magistrature 
>>>in countries such as Italy seems to derive directly from that of the Roman 
>>>magistrates, whereas that in England and Wales derives from another model- I 
>>>wonder what it might be?
>>
>>I think it's the fundamental difference of principle between Roman
>>Law, where the opinions of appointed legal experts hold sway, and
>>Common Law, where the opinion of a jury drawn from the people is
>>sacrosanct.
>>
>>I'm sure Charles will be able to express it far better.  ;-)
>>
>I would have described the investigating magistrate/procurator
>fiscal/other types of prosecutor as more a variation in the method of
>administration of the law rather than in the principles of the law.
>The Romans seem to feature somewhere in the background of most legal
>systems worldwide, the influence depending on who has invaded whom or
>where various legal systems have borrowed from and how each system has
>developed over the years. The main difference with France IMU is that
>it has a codified system of law and the opportunity for judges to
>"make it up as they go" (as required within the limits applicable) is
>not the same as in a system which is not restricted to codes/statutes.
>IMU the "common" in "Common Law" derives from the element of
>uniformity rather than involvement of the common people; the judges
>have to confine themselves to legal principles and/or decisions but
>juries don't.


Thanks Charles.  

Not for the first time, I am grateful for your expertise.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:03:27 +0100, Tony Polson
 wrote:

>Charles Ellson  wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:23:14 +0100, Tony Polson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Charles Ellson"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:g40pc4df3k759b2nfvdepnpvq0iibr9lpg@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 21:02:33 +0100, Tony Polson
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"BH Williams"  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The unaffected parts of RTN are subject to a French judicial enquiry, and 
>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>no access is available to them until the Juge d' Instruction (roughly
>>>>>>>equivalent to the DA in the States or the DPP in the UK) decides that 
>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>is no pertinent evidence in them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no equivalent to the Juge d'Instruction in English Law.  In
>>>>>>Scottish Law there is a close equivalent called the Procurator Fiscal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The best term to represent the job the Juge d'Instruction does is that
>>>>>>of "Investigating Magistrate".  Unlike the DPP, an Investigating
>>>>>>Magistrate has the power to make his own investigations, independently
>>>>>>of any police force if he sees fit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>{No doubt Charles Ellson will be along soon to correct my mistakes.]
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not familiar with the French version but your general description
>>>>> seems to fit my vague understanding that a French investigating
>>>>> magistrate is to some extent comparable to a PF but with the power to
>>>>> do his own compelling when necessary (IMU a PF can only "invite"
>>>>> someone to assist him where there is no duty to do so and has to leave
>>>>> compulsion to the courts and the police BICBW). According to the
>>>>> "Inquisitorial system" article in Wikipedia only a small proportion of
>>>>> French offences are actually dealt with by investigating magistrates,
>>>>> being the more serious or complex cases; OTOH all public prosecutions
>>>>> in Scotland are subject to approval by the Procurator Fiscal (if I'm
>>>>> reading the instructions correctly, the Lord Advocate is also involved
>>>>> in murder and rape prosecutions). Private prosecutions are extremely
>>>>> rare and dealt with differently.
>>>>I suspect the J d'I is involved in almost all cases, but in the majority of 
>>>>cases need only take the evidence the police have amassed and 
>>>>sanction/dismiss formal prosecution. He or she only seems to have a lead 
>>>>role in serious or high-profile cases.
>>>>The post is a highly-political one, and J d'I decisions about prosecutions 
>>>>have been subject to serious public criticism in recent times (far more 
>>>>widespread than in England and Wales for example, where there may be 
>>>>complaints about 'an out-of-touch' judiciary, but rarely stong personal 
>>>>attacks upon a particular judge)- try Googling 'Outreau' for some idea about 
>>>>the furore raised by a controversial case of recent years in the Boulogne 
>>>>region.
>>>
>>>
>>>In England, personal attacks on individual judges are very common
>>>where their sentencing appears bizarre, usually over-lenient. 
>>>
>>>
>>>>The idea of the Juge d'Instruction, Procurator Fiscal, and the magistrature 
>>>>in countries such as Italy seems to derive directly from that of the Roman 
>>>>magistrates, whereas that in England and Wales derives from another model- I 
>>>>wonder what it might be?
>>>
>>>I think it's the fundamental difference of principle between Roman
>>>Law, where the opinions of appointed legal experts hold sway, and
>>>Common Law, where the opinion of a jury drawn from the people is
>>>sacrosanct.
>>>
>>>I'm sure Charles will be able to express it far better.  ;-)
>>>
>>I would have described the investigating magistrate/procurator
>>fiscal/other types of prosecutor as more a variation in the method of
>>administration of the law rather than in the principles of the law.
>>The Romans seem to feature somewhere in the background of most legal
>>systems worldwide, the influence depending on who has invaded whom or
>>where various legal systems have borrowed from and how each system has
>>developed over the years. The main difference with France IMU is that
>>it has a codified system of law and the opportunity for judges to
>>"make it up as they go" (as required within the limits applicable) is
>>not the same as in a system which is not restricted to codes/statutes.
>>IMU the "common" in "Common Law" derives from the element of
>>uniformity rather than involvement of the common people; the judges
>>have to confine themselves to legal principles and/or decisions but
>>juries don't.
>
>
>Thanks Charles.  
>
>Not for the first time, I am grateful for your expertise.
>
The usual warnings re "free legal advice....." etc. apply. ;-)

Charles Ellson  wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:03:27 +0100, Tony Polson
> wrote:
>
>>Thanks Charles.  
>>
>>Not for the first time, I am grateful for your expertise.
>>
>The usual warnings re "free legal advice....." etc. apply. ;-)


All disclaimers accepted and understood.  ;-)