Examining magistrate

Last updated

An examining magistrate is a judge in an inquisitorial system of law who carries out pre-trial investigations into allegations of crime and in some cases makes a recommendation for prosecution. Also known as an investigating magistrate, inquisitorial magistrate, or investigating judge, the exact role and standing of examining magistrates varies by jurisdiction. Common duties and powers of the examining magistrate include overseeing ongoing criminal investigations, issuing search warrants, authorizing wiretaps, making decisions on pretrial detention, interrogating the accused person, questioning witnesses, examining evidence, as well as compiling a dossier of evidence in preparation for trial.

Contents

Investigating judges in France have an important role in the French judiciary. They are also a feature of the Spanish, Dutch, Belgian and Greek criminal justice systems, although the extent of the examining magistrate's role has generally diminished over time. Since the late 20th and early 21st centuries, several countries, including Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, and Italy, have abolished the position of examining magistrate outright. In some cases, they have created new positions that take on some of these responsibilities.

Role and description

John Henry Merryman and Rogelio Pérez-Perdomo have described the examining magistrate's role in civil-law systems as follows:

The typical criminal proceeding in the civil law world can be thought of as divided into three basic parts: the investigative phase, the examining phase (the instruction), and the trial. The investigative phase comes under the direction of the public prosecutor, who also participates actively in the examining phase, which is supervised by the examining judge. The examining phase is primarily written and is not public. The examining judge controls the nature and scope of this phase of the proceeding. The examining judge is expected to investigate the matter thoroughly and to prepare a complete written record so that by the time the examining stage is complete, all the relevant evidence is in the record. If the examining judge concludes that a crime was committed and that the accused is the perpetrator, the case then goes to trial. If the judge decides that no crime was committed or that the crime was not committed by the accused, the matter does not go to trial. [1]

Comparison to common-law systems

The role of the examining magistrate is important in civil-law jurisdictions such as France, which have an inquisitorial system. In contrast, common-law jurisdictions such as England and the United States have an adversarial system and lack a comparable official. [2] [3] Frequent close interaction with police and prosecutors "may well condition examining magistrates to favor the long-term interests of regular participants over those of the accused." [4] This problem also affects common-law jurisdictions. It has been noted that "in the United States, the focus of concern has been the independence of counsel for the defense, while in France, concern focuses on the independence of the examining magistrate." [5]

The examination phase has been described as "the most controversial aspect of criminal procedure" in civil-law jurisdictions because of "[t]he secrecy and length of the proceedings, the large powers enjoyed by examining magistrates" and "the possibility for abuse inherent in the power of the individual magistrate to work in secret and to keep people incarcerated for long periods." [6]

Some commentators, however, have compared the examining magistrate's role favorably to that of the grand jury in common-law systems. Scholar George C. Thomas III finds that while the grand jury as it exists in U.S. law is an effective investigative function, it lacks the screening functions that the French system has. Thomas notes that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, U.S. prosecutors are not obliged to present exculpatory evidence to grand juries, and as a result, grand jurors hear only evidence from the prosecution. By contrast, under the French system, the French examining magistrate operates as an investigator, and the indicting chamber acts as a screening body expressly responsible for seeking the truth. [7]

By country

The use of the examining magistrate has declined in Europe over time. [8] Spain, France, Croatia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Greece are among the countries to retain the practice. But in all of these nations, the examining magistrate's role has been diminished, with a general trend of restricting the examining magistrate's involvement to only "serious crimes or sensitive cases", or having the examining magistrate share responsibility with the public prosecutor. [8] [9] Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, and Italy have all abolished the examining-magistrate system. [10] [9]

France

In France, the investigating judge (juge d'instruction) has been a feature of the judicial system since the mid-19th century, and the preliminary investigative procedure has been a part of the judicial system since at least the 17th century. [3] The sweeping powers traditionally entrusted to them were so broad that Honoré de Balzac called the investigating judge "the most powerful man in France" in the 19th century. [11]

Later, however, the authority of the investigating judges in France was diminished by a series of reforms, [11] initiated in 1985 by French justice minister Robert Badinter. [12] [13] and extending into the 2000s. [14] [15] [16]

Today, investigating judges are one of four types of French magistrates, the others being trial judges (magistrats de siège), public prosecutors (magistrats debout), and policymaking and administrative magistrates at the Ministry of Justice. [17] Each investigating judge is appointed by the president of France upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Justice and serves renewable three-year terms. [3]

An investigating judge initiates an investigation upon an order of the Public Prosecutor (procureur) or upon the request of a private citizen. The investigating judge may issue Letters rogatory, order the seizure of necessary evidence, compel witnesses to appear and give evidence, and request expert testimony at an investigative hearing, the judge may have witnesses confront each other or the accused. [3]

Spain

In Spain, a juez de instrucción is an examining judge, [18] and a juzgado de instrucción is the office of an examining judge. [19] Each investigating judge is responsible for investigating "all kind of criminal cases committed in his district, except those cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the National Court ( Audiencia Nacional ) or where another court has jurisdiction ratione personae ." [18] In addition to investigating crimes of all sorts, "the investigating judges are competent to try petty offense cases." [20]

Among the most famous Spanish investigating judges was Baltasar Garzón, a polarizing figure known for investigating high-profile corruption and human rights cases. Garzón was known for invoking the doctrine of universal jurisdiction to issue an international arrest warrant for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, leading to his apprehension in London in 1998. Garzón also gained attention for overseeing an inquiry into atrocities committed during the Spanish Civil War (despite a 1977 amnesty act) and human rights abuses committed during the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. Garzón was convicted of illegal wiretapping in 2012 and was suspended from the bench for 11 years. [21]

Andorra

The small European nation of Andorra has investigating magistrates; in 2018, for example, an investigating magistrate in the country issued indictments against 28 people, including former Venezuelan officials, on charges of money laundering. [22]

Belgium and the Netherlands

Both Belgium and the Netherlands retain the examining judge in some cases; examining judges investigate in 5% of cases in Belgium and 2% of cases in the Netherlands. [9]

In Belgium, criminal proceedings are usually initiated by the public prosecutor (Procureur des Konings or procureur du roi), who typically decides whether to issue a summons to a suspect ordering him or her to appear in court. However, in "more serious or complicated cases" the prosecutor can defer to matter to the examining magistrate (onderzoeksrechter or juge d'instruction), who is an independent judge and member of the tribunal of first instance (Rechtbank van eerste aanleg or Tribunal de première instance). [23] The onderzoeksrechter has the power to question suspects, but not under oath, and may also question witnesses, issue search warrants, and issue detention orders. The onderzoeksrechter generates a report on the outcome of the investigation and then refers it to the raadkamer, an arm of the court, to decide whether to dismiss the case, allow it to proceed, or (in certain circumstances) to refer it to another court. [24] The role is unusual, as the onderzoeksrechter simultaneously serves a judge and an officer of the police judiciaire. [25]

In the Netherlands, the position of examining magistrate has existed since 1926, and the powers of the office were strengthened in 1999. [26] Dutch public prosecutors are charged with supervising criminal investigations and ensuring the "legitimacy, fairness and overall integrity" of the investigation and pretrial proceedings. [27] In addition to their investigative role, [28] examining magistrate is also charged with making determinations as to the lawfulness of arrests and as to pretrial detention. [29] The examining magistrate specifically reviews the public prosecutor's request to use some intrusive special investigative techniques when the prosecutor requests the magistrate to do so. [27] For the most intrusive modes of investigation, such as wiretapping or other telecommunication intercepts, public prosecutors must secure the approval of the examining magistrate. [27] [30]

Latin America

In Latin America, the investigative (sumario or instrucción) phase of a criminal prosecution was historically overseen by an examining magistrate, preceding the trial (plenario) phase. [31] [32] In the first phase, an examining magistrate interviewed the witnesses, questioned the accused, examined evidence, and created a dossier before making a recommendation to the trial judge as to whether the defendant should be discharged or tried. [31] Formerly, in Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela, "no distinction was made between the examining magistrate, who is responsible for the investigation, and the judge, who issues the rulings. This distinction was considered very important in Europe, where these functions were separated to promote the impartiality of the court." [33] In Chile, for example, examining magistrates formerly had the "triple role" of overseeing the investigation, rendering a verdict, and passing a sentence. [34]

By the end of the 20th century, most Latin American countries followed Germany in eliminating the examination phase. [1] In 1998, Venezuela enacted a legal reform that ended the secrecy of the sumario phase and bolstered the ability of accused persons to prepare a defense. [35] Beginning in 2002, Chile began to incorporate more adversarial aspects into its inquisitorial system, and this reform was implemented fully by 2005. [34] The transition to a separation of judicial and investigative roles meant that public prosecutors (fiscales) obtained many responsibilities that were historically performed by investigative magistrates. [36] However, investigations in past human rights abuses in Chile have continued to use investigative magistrates at the first stage. [34]

Greece

Greece, which follows a French-style legal system, has retained the investigative magistrate. In Greece, the investigative magistrate interviews witnesses, reviews the evidence, and refers cases to the public prosecutor, who makes the ultimate charging decision. [37] Greek investigative magistrates can also issue arrest warrants. [38]

Countries where the position was abolished

Italy

Italy abolished the examining magistrate in 1989, as part of a broader overhaul of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. [39] The reform transferred the investigative functions of the examining magistrate to public prosecutors, [40] who in Italy are also considered judges. [41] The reform transferred the oversight functions of examining magistrates to newly created judges of the preliminary investigation with specified duties, including the issuance of search warrants, the authorization of wiretaps, and the decision on pretrial detention. [42] The replacement of examining magistrates was not the only element of the 1989 reform that "marked a departure from the inquisitorial French tradition and partly subscribed to adversarial assumptions"; the code revision introduced cross-examination and negotiation between the parties, although it preserved some elements of the continental legal tradition. [42]

Switzerland

Carla Del Ponte Carla Del Ponte.jpg
Carla Del Ponte

Before 2011 Switzerland had four different models of inquiry: examining magistrate models I and II (Untersuchungsrichtermodell) and public prosecutor models I and II (Staatsanwaltschaftsmodell). [43] Different cantons of Switzerland used different models. [44] Under "examining magistrate model I" an independent examining magistrate directed the police investigation directly, and the public prosecutor was only a party in the case. [45] Under "examining magistrate model II" the examining magistrate and the public prosecutor jointly directed pre-trial proceedings; "the examining magistrate acted not independently, but was bound by the public prosecutor's instructions." [46] The "public prosecutor model I" followed the multiple-stage French system, in which (1) the public prosecution first directed the investigation by judicial police before transferring the matter to the independent examining magistrate; (2) the examining magistrate conducted examination independent of the prosecutor; and (3) at the end of the examining magistrate's inquiry, the case was returned to the public prosecutor, who made the ultimate decision on "whether to charge or discontinue the case." [47] Finally, under "public prosecutor model II" the examining magistrate was absent altogether and the public prosecutor being the "master of preliminary proceedings" responsible for conducting the investigation and examination, making the decision of whether or not to charge, and prosecuting the case. [8]

When the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure came into effect in 2011, Switzerland adopted the latter model nationwide, abolished the position of examining magistrate that had previously existed in some cantons. [8]

One prominent Swiss investigative magistrate was Carla Del Ponte, who became prominent for her investigations into Sicilian Mafia crime in Switzerland. Del Ponte was later appointed public prosecutor and then federal attorney general of Switzerland, before becoming chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. [48]

Elsewhere

Poland historically had examining magistrates; Polish examining magistrate Jan Sehn investigated the Nazi atrocities at Auschwitz in preparation for the Auschwitz trials. [49] However, in 1949, the Polish judiciary was restructured along Soviet lines, and the position of investigating magistrate was eliminated. [50]

West Germany abolished the examining magistrate at the end of 1974. [51] [9] Portugal abolished the examining magistrate in 1987. [9]

The 1969 film Z stars an examining magistrate based on Christos Sartzetakis. [52]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 Merryman & Pérez-Perdomo 2007, p. 130
  2. ↑ Jacob 1996 , p. 213
  3. 1 2 3 4 Encyclopædia Britannica 2002
  4. ↑ Jacob 1996 , p. 212
  5. ↑ Jacob 1996 , pp. 212–13
  6. ↑ Fairchild 1993 , p. 128
  7. ↑ Thomas III 2008 , p. 203
  8. 1 2 3 4 Gilliéron 2014 , p. 59
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Fenyk 2000 , p. 42
  10. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , p. 60
  11. 1 2 Gilliéron 2014 , pp. 50, 319
  12. ↑ Vogler 2005 , p. 148
  13. ↑ Vogler 2005 , p. 149
  14. ↑ Lichfield 2002
  15. ↑ Samuel 2009
  16. ↑ Saltmarsh 2010
  17. ↑ Anderson 2011 , p. 167
  18. 1 2 Bachmaier & García 2010 , p. 31
  19. ↑ Truscott & García 1998 , p. 169
  20. ↑ Bachmaier & García 2010 , p. 32
  21. ↑ Minder & Simons 2012.
  22. ↑ Aritz Parra, Andorra charges Venezuelan ex-officials for money laundering Archived 2018-09-18 at the Wayback Machine , Associated Press (September 13, 2018).
  23. ↑ Châtel 1982 , p. 189
  24. ↑ Châtel 1982 , pp. 189–90
  25. ↑ Pesquié 2002 , p. 106
  26. ↑ Ballin 2012 , pp. 101–02
  27. 1 2 3 Ballin 2012 , p. 101
  28. ↑ Franken 2012 , pp. 38–40
  29. ↑ Franken 2012 , p. 36
  30. ↑ Franken 2012 , pp. 37–38
  31. 1 2 Karst & Rosenn 1975 , p. 56
  32. ↑ Mauricio & Pérez-Perdomo 2003 , pp. 72–73
  33. ↑ Mauricio & Pérez-Perdomo 2003 , p. 73
  34. 1 2 3 Skaar 2011 , p. 127
  35. ↑ Ungar 2002 , p. 59
  36. ↑ Collins 2010 , p. 123
  37. ↑ Veremēs & Dragoumēs 1995 , p. 102
  38. ↑ Kitsantonis 2017
  39. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , p. 127
  40. ↑ Salas 2002 , p. 495
  41. ↑ Salas 2002 , p. 498
  42. 1 2 Maffei & Merzagora Betsos 2010 , p. 173
  43. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , p. 57
  44. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , pp. 57–59
  45. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , pp. 57–58
  46. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , p. 58
  47. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , pp. 58–59
  48. ↑ Del Ponte 2009
  49. ↑ Langbein 2005 , pp. 8, 314
  50. ↑ Paczkowski 2010 , p. 231
  51. ↑ Gilliéron 2014 , p. 319
  52. ↑ The New York Times Guide to the Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made (Revised and updated ed.). Macmillan. 2004. p. 145. ISBN   9780312326111.

Related Research Articles

The adversarial system or adversary system or accusatorial system or accusatory system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' case or position before an impartial person or group of people, usually a judge or jury, who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment accordingly. It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems where a judge investigates the case.

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure.

Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and regulations along with some standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the adversarial system, which is adopted in common law, or inquisitorial system, which is adopted in civil law. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery (law)</span> Pretrial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a phase of pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from other parties. This is by means of methods of discovery such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from nonparties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Conversely, a party or nonparty resisting discovery can seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion for a protective order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Israel</span> Part of the article of the series of government of Israel

The judicial system of Israel consists of secular courts and religious courts. The law courts constitute a separate and independent unit of Israel's Ministry of Justice. The system is headed by the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial</span> Coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal

In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Singapore</span> Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

The legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.

A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual private citizen or private organisation instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain barristers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Italian Code of Criminal Procedure</span>

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure contains the rules governing criminal procedure in every court in Italy. The Italian legal order adopted four codes since the Italian Unification. After the first two codes, in 1865 and 1913, the Fascist Government established in 1930 a new code adopting an inquisitorial system. In 1988 the Italian Republic adopted a new code, that could be considered to be somewhere in between the inquisitorial system and the adversarial system.

The legal system of Venezuela belongs to the Continental Law tradition. Venezuela was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, doing so in 1863.

<i>Tribunal correctionnel</i> French court of first instance for criminal matters

In France, the correctional court is the court of first instance that has jurisdiction in criminal matters regarding offenses classified as délits  committed by an adult. In 2013, French correctional courts rendered 576,859 judgments and pronounced 501,171 verdicts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">French criminal law</span>

French criminal law is "the set of legal rules that govern the State's response to offenses and offenders". It is one of the branches of the juridical system of the French Republic. The field of criminal law is defined as a sector of French law, and is a combination of public and private law, insofar as it punishes private behavior on behalf of society as a whole. Its function is to define, categorize, prevent, and punish criminal offenses committed by a person, whether a natural person or a legal person. In this sense it is of a punitive nature, as opposed to civil law in France, which settles disputes between individuals, or administrative law which deals with issues between individuals and government.

The judiciary of Serbia is a branch of the government of Serbia that interprets and applies the laws of Serbia, ensuring equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The legal system of Serbia is a civil law system, historically influenced by Germanic and, to a lesser degree, French law, as well as Yugoslav law, but in the process of the accession of Serbia to the European Union, the legal system is being completely harmonised with European Union law. The Constitution of Serbia provides for an independent judiciary, led by the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Justice handles the administration of judiciary, including paying salaries and constructing new courthouses, as well as administering the prison system.

A criminal proceeding in French law is one carried out in the name of society against a person accused of a criminal offense by applying the French penal code. It is taken in the name of society, in that its goal is to stop disruption of public order, and not to abate personal damages done to a specific person, which is governed by French civil law.

French criminal procedure focuses on how individuals accused of crimes are dealt with in the French criminal justice system: how people are investigated, prosecuted, tried, and punished for an infraction defined in the penal code. These procedural issues are codified in the French code of criminal procedure. It is the procedural arm of French criminal law.

In French criminal law, the investigation phase in a criminal proceeding is the procedure during which an investigating judge gathers evidence on the commission of an offense and decides whether to refer the persons charged to the trial court.

The judiciary of Serbia is a branch of the government of Serbia that interprets and applies the laws of Serbia, to ensure equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution. The legal system of Serbia is a civil law system, historically influenced by Germanic and, to a lesser degree, French law, as well as Yugoslav law, but in the process of the accession of Serbia to the European Union, the legal system is being completely harmonised with European Union law. The Constitution of Serbia provides for an independent judiciary, led by the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Justice handles the administration of judiciary, including paying salaries and constructing new courthouses, as well as administering the prison system.

References

Books

Other works

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.