Our system works best when the two parties are allowed to call whatever evidence they desire.

Witnesses can be confused when asked to say yes or no to a question. What they should do is to reply as asked, but add, if that is the case, that the answer does not present the complete picture. It's then up to the questioner to decide whether to take it further. If he doesn't then the other side can in cross examination or re-examination.

It's the parties, not the witnesses who are important in court.

In an adversarial legal system like those in the US and UK this type of interaction between lawyer and witness is really unavoidable; it is the lawyer's job to make the most robust case that s/he can.

Many continental European countries use the inquisitorial system, where the judge is far more involved; this tends to put witnesses under less pressure, see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3132193.stm

But do we really want to tamper with our legal system at this very deep level? I would think the majority opinion would not be in favour.

Finally, this idea should really be in the 'restoring civil liberties' category, not 'repealing unnecessary laws'.

 jessiebo -

"But do we really want to tamper with our legal system at this very deep level? I would think the majority opinion would not be in favour."

Majority of whom? Those who had never experienced court procedure, but rather have had gained their perception of it from TV dramas and newspaper reports - or those who have actually witnessed - or have participated in it, as accused or witness?

I suspect that if it is the latter group, there would be a very large majority in favour of fundamental change in many aspects of the whole rotten process.

The truth? Forget that - it's not important. If it was, the police could never secure a conviction.

I think the basis of many recent problems lie not in the basic system itself, but in the way that New Labour tampered with the 'innocent until proven guilty' factor and put the police and CPS on targets relating to numbers of convictions, rather than to carrying out good quality detective work.

We would have to ask ourselves what type(s) of change would be likely to make things any better. For example, in an inquisitorial system the defendant is hugely dependent upon just one person- the judge. Is this what the UK wants?

The legal system provides a fundamental underpinning for society, and it seems that problems only began to mushroom when Blair/ Brown/ Straw/ Harman started to tamper with it. I therefore think that any big changes would need to be discussed at length with careful reference to issues arising before the New Labour changes as well as those arising after, to carefully diagnose what the problems may be. The tabloid press should certainly not play any serious role in such discussion!

Jessiebo-

Bang on, regarding Labour's interference and the effects of it, but what I'm really advocating is an enhancement of the jury system, rather than replacing it.

Half the time, jurors don't even understand what is going on in court. The acoustics are often terrible - the microphones present are, I believe, for the benefit of the court stenographer. Certainly they do not amplify the voices of any of the parties involved.

There are numerous ways things could be improved. The output from the stenographer could be relayed on a screen to all the jury memebers, for a start. Then if a juror was unsure as to what someone had said, they could replay that part of the proceedings. Jurors should be allowed - indeed encouraged - to ask for clarification, where something is not clearly understood.

The defence barrister may make a really powerful point that throws doubt on the whole case - but if not all the jurors hear or understand it, the effect is lost, and worse still, since it didn't aqcuit the defendant, it's not new, and can't be brought up later, on appeal.

Twelve heads are better than one, I agree - but they need to hear, see, and understand what is happening.