This big change is not only limited to one aspect of the inquisitorial system but the interesting factor is derogation and lack of confidence showed by the continental countries in their own legal system and this departure from inquisitorial method has resulted in arrival to adversary method6. That is, they must prepare and present their own cases and accept the responsibility for the consequences. In inquisitorial systems, there is little use of case law judicial precedent , which means that judges have the liberty to decide cases independently of previous decisions. In his article titled, 'the Criminal Justice System in Jeopardy', K van Dijkhorst outlines the three fundamental aims of any legal system: i to perform truth-finding, with the outcome being the acquittal of the innocent and conviction of the guilty; ii to perform truth-finding in a manner that is fair and protective of the rights of both the accused and the society; and iii to accomplish the two preceding objectives in an effective and efficient manner. He plays an active role in the interrogation of witnesses, and in the evidence-gathering process Ambos, The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material.
In the inquisitorial regime, criminal proceedings are divided into three phases: the investigative, examining and trial phases. In the author's words, the legal system's aim is "to arrive at the truth expeditiously and fairly" Dijkhorst, , p. Even in civil litigation inquisitorial method is much appreciated as well, in many cases the ordinary court and the tribunals have stressed that the principles of the natural cannot apply in the same way to inquisitorial proceeding as they do to adversarial proceedings of the civil litigation. Since juries are not used often, formal rules of evidence are not very stringent; the admissibility of evidence relies on whether or not the judge deems such evidence relevant New Zealand Ministry of Justice,
Another feature shared by both systems is the rules of evidence admission McKillop,
Similarities between the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems A similar feature shared by both the inquisitorial and adversarial systems is that both methods rely on an impartial fact-finder to preside over the case and give a verdict. In some cases, the judge oversees the investigative phase of the proceedings.
Hearsay evidence can, however, be allowed if it is deemed reliable New Zealand Ministry of Justice, This proposal complements existing studies by analyzing the differences and similarities between adversarial and inquisitorial justice systems. This system sees the court as a battlefield with either party seeking to be a victor. That is, they must prepare and present their own cases and accept the responsibility for the consequences. The role of the litigants and their representatives is very limited as their primary role is simply to assist the judge in ascertaining the truth.
He has a more active role as he supervises the gathering of evidence. The attorneys for the prosecution the accuser and defense the accused play a limited role in offering legal arguments and interpretations that they believe the court should give to the facts that are discovered. Party control is the first strength of the system.
This is significantly different from the adversarial system, where investigations are conducted, and evidence collected by the parties in contest, that is the police and the defense New Zealand Ministry of Justice, In the context of civil litigation, privilege refers to the ability to withhold specified documents despite disclosing them on relevant legal grounds such as the Evidence Act, Civil Procedure Act, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules UCPR and common law. The most important extract of the difference and distinction between these two different kinds of trial systems is based upon the extent of involvement of courts, legal representatives and parties to a particular case. It examines the legal procedures in three adversarial countries vis-a-vis three inquisitorial countries with the aim of determining how either system facilitates or impedes on the realization of legal traditions.