########################################
#Written by David Tam, 1997.           #
#davidkftam@netscape.net Copyright 1999#
########################################

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    A court session was attended at the Old City Hall on Monday, February 17,
1997.  From the observations made in court room 112, this report was produced.
It should be noted that there were actually a number of different cases heard
in this court room rather than one lengthy serious case.  In summary, it was
quite an informative experience to attend an actual court hearing.  In general,
I feel that the judicial system functions fairly efficiently and upholds the
law to the highest standards.  However, its efficiency can be low at times.

OLD CITY HALL

    The court session attended in room 112 was used for hearing minor criminal
offenses and had no jury.  I suppose that the defendants in these cases chose
not to be tried by members of their peers in society.  Instead, these
defendants chose to be tried by the judge only.  Possibly, as a means of
efficiency, these fairly minor criminal cases were encouraged to be tried by
judge only.  In this way, the judicial system would not need to consume the
time of 12 jurors for a minor offense.  This probably helps to increase the
efficiency of the court system although many will argue that the system is
still very inefficient.

    Like many other court rooms, this one had a section for the public audience
and a section for the court members, separated by a wooden railing that spanned
the width of the room.  The main entrance to the court room was located at the
side, while a smaller entrance was located behind and to the left of the judge.
One police officer was located beside the main entrance, while another was
located by the back entrance.  The judge sat in his traditional position, high
above everyone else in the room.  He wore a black robe with a red stripe that
ran along the top of his left shoulder and under his right arm.  The only
apparent decoration was a coat of arms hanging on the back wall above the
judge.  Immediately below and in front of him sat the administrative staff.
This row consisted of two clerks and a secretary.  The secretary produced a
transcript of the court session by speaking into a muffled apparatus instead of
typing shorthand on a typewriter-like machine.  This row of staff was also
elevated, although not as high as the judge's position They sat facing the
audience as well.  The judge's and the administrative staffs' desk seemed to be
a complete one-piece unit made of varnished wood.  Immediately in front and
below the staff sat the crown attorney, the court officer, and the defence
lawyer whom all faced the judge.  This row of lawyers had regular separate
desks that were placed directly in front of the administrative row.  These
seating positions formed a symmetric pyramid, with the judge located at the
peak, re-enforcing his appearance of power and authority.  Microphones were
present beside every court member.  An elevated and separated witness stand was
located to the left of the judge.

    A number of minor criminal cases were heard in this particular court room.
The court sessions generally proceeded in the following fashion.  As the judge,
administrative staff, and lawyers looked over their legal paperwork, the
accused would be brought into the room and placed on the witness stand.  The
accused  would be escorted by a police officer entering through the back door.
The accused would be given a brief discussion period with his court appointed
defence attorney.  Surprisingly, the accused does not go through the process of
swearing oath.  The crown attorney would be the first to speak, describing the
reported criminal offence to the court.  The judge then asks for the plea from
the accused.  The defence lawyer, who is often beside the accused, speaks for
his client, entering the plea and giving the appropriate defence.  Upon hearing
both sides, the judge moderates the session by asking more specific questions
and receiving replies from the two lawyers and some times directly from the
accused as well.  The type of questioning from the judge usually involved a
request for more detailed information.  Surprisingly, there were no arguments
between the two lawyers.  No questioning of the accused was done by the crown
attorney or the defence attorney.  Perhaps this was why there was no swearing
of oath.  Usually, after a few additional comments are made from both sides,
the judge would make his decision of whether the accused was guilty or
innocent. Basically, each side stated the facts and the judge made his decision
based upon this.  The accused is then escorted out of the court room by the
police officer.  This entire process happened fairly quickly, allowing for a
number of different cases to be heard during the court session.

    The first full case observed involved the theft of magazines under a total
of $5000.  This was considered as minor theft.  The accused admitted to having
possession of the goods but pleaded not guilty to the charge of theft.  After
questioning the accused about his past criminal record, the judge reached a
decision.  As mentioned before, because of the lack of arguing back and forth,
the defence lawyer did not defend the accused when this question was brought
up. The accused had to return the goods to its rightful owner.  This case was
surprisingly quick, lasting approximately 5 minutes.

    Out of necessity the legal system involves a lot of paper work and a lot of
bureaucracy.  Because of the amount of bureaucratic tape involved, the next
case heard by the court had two major errors.  First, the name of the accused
and witness were apparently mixed up in the paper work,

    My general impression of the court room proceedings was that the judicial
system is very competent in terms of the essential legal aspects, and in terms
of interpreting the law.  All members of the court seemed to be very competent
and confident in their roles.  The formality of speech in the court room was
adhered to by the lawyers and the accused.  For instance, they referred to the
judge as "your honour". In terms of efficiency, there seemed to be a lot of
time in between cases where the legal paperwork was shuffled and reviewed by
the appropriate members.  Time was also spent waiting for the police officers
to escort the accused into the court room.  However, once a case was under way,
the session ran very quickly.  Large amounts of paper work are necessary in the
legal profession and the disadvantages of this were clearly pointed out in this
particular court.  The confusion of names and the possible duplication of a
trial were two serious flaws.  In general, the legal system functions quite
effectively at interpreting and enforcing the law.  However, due to the amount
of paper work inherent in the system, it can be quite  inefficient at times.