×

Cookie Consent

საიტით სარგებლობის გაგრძელებით, შენ ეთანხმები Cookie ჩანაწერების გამოყენებას, მეტი ინფორმაციისთვის იხილეთ კონფიდენციალურობის პოლიტიკა

ციფრული იდენტიფიკატორი
doi.org/10.36475/L.A.W.14
შემოკლება
L.A.W.
გამოცემა
ელ.ვერსია
ბეჭდური

ამ სტატიაში

    რეზიუმე - Journal Law and World

    Volume 8, Issue 2

    The jury – A comparative legal analysis of Georgian and Irish legislation

    Authors: Kalenike Uridia

    Kalenike Uridia

    Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Law, 3rd year undergraduate student, Erasmus exchange student at University of Limerick (Ireland) and University of Münster (Germany), Lawyer of the NGO "Young Barristers" and the law firm "Kaikatsishvili and Barristers"

    Email: kalenike.uridia044@law.tsu.edu.ge



    Affiliation: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Law, 3rd year undergraduate student, Erasmus exchange student at University of Limerick (Ireland) and University of Münster (Germany), Lawyer of the NGO "Young Barristers" and the law firm "Kaikatsishvili and Barristers"

    Abstract: The jury is critical to the establishment of democratic government across the world. Community engagement in the legal system is one of the most successful and intriguing strategies that has been in use for many years in many nations throughout the world. Despite the favorable aspects, there are a few little details that might be problematic. The papers focus is on the jury systems in Georgia and Ireland. Ireland and Georgia belong to distinct legal families; in specifically, Georgia is a civil law country with a codified legal system, whilst Ireland is a common law country with a case-law-based legal system; this makes for an intriguing comparative legal analysis. The study examines the historical origins of the jury trial across the world; the historical backdrop of the establishment of a jury trial in Georgia and Ireland; and the historical background of the establishment of a jury trial in Georgia and Ireland. The focus was on the defining elements of the two-state approach, after which ecommendations were produced to strengthen both states' regulation; also, the attention was on the deficiencies of the institute of jurors, which is still an issue today. The authors position was developed to resolve issues and enhance the system. Systematic, analytical, comparative legal, historical, and logical methodologies were used to conduct the research. The purpose of this study is to analyze theoretical and practical materials to emphasize the importance of the jury in both Ireland and Georgia.

    Keywords: Court of Jurors, Judge, Verdict, Georgia, Ireland


    Language: EN

    views: 16478
    Download




    ბიბლიოგრაფია:

    1. Blackstone, W., (1791). Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. III, 379
    2. Gogolashvili, J., (2019). Comparative Legal Analysis of the Jury Court, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)
    3. Jury Service Law Reform Commission Report (2013).
    4. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England, and Wales (Stationery Office, London, 2001).
    5. O'Malley, The Criminal Process, 1st Ed. 2009.
    6. Chachua, F., (2005). Student Forum, Basic Trends in the Origin and Development of Jurors, Georgian Law View. (In Georgian)
    7. Diasamidze, F., (2020). Review of the Jury Judicial System in Georgia and Ways to Improve It, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)
    8. Katie Quinn, Jury Trial in Republic of Ireland.
    9. Rekhviashvili, T., (2010). Court of Jurors, Tbilisi. (In Georgian)
    10. Sally Lioyd-Bostock Theryl Thomas, decline of the "Little Parlament", Juries and Jury Reform in England and Wales, 62 Law & Contemp.
    11. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Report Cmnd 2263 (HMSO, London, 1993)
    12. Yorhendi L., & Tsikarishvili K., (2009). Court of Jurors. Review of Western Systems, Bona Causa, Tbilisi.
    13. Roberts, P., (2011). Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Require Reasoned Verdicts in Criminal Trials? Human Rights Law Review, N11(2)
    14. Rhodes, D., (2010). Quixotic Endeavours, 154 Solicitors Journal 6.
    15. Roberts, P., (2011). Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Require Reasoned Verdicts in Criminal Trials? Human Rights Law Review N11(2).
    16. Hans, V., & Germaine, C., (2011). The French Jury at a Crossroads, Chicago – Kent Law Review, 762, Vol. 86:2.
    17. Barata, F., (2019). The Media and Crime Information the Tony King Case and Media Distortions
    18. Juries Act 1976, First Schedule, as amended by Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008
    19. Constitution of the Independent Republic of Georgia
    20. Criminal Procedure Code of the Independent Republic of Georgia
    21. Criminal Justice Act 1984.
    22. Citizen of Georgia Anna Jalaghonia . Parliament of Georgia.
    23. Williams v Florida 399 US 78 (1970).
    24. Walsh J. in De Burca v Attorney-General [1976] I.R. 38 at 67.
    25. People (DPP) v. Nevin [2003] 3 I.R. 321.
    26. Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], [2010] no. 926/05, EHRR
    27. Shala v. Norway, [2012] no. 1195/10, EHRR
    28. R v. Belgium, [1992] no. 15957/90, EHRR.
    29. Zarouali v. Belgium, [1994], no. 20664/92, EHRR.
    30. Planka v. Austria, [1996], no. 25852/94, EHRR.
    31. Saric v. Denmark, [1999], no. 31913/96, EHRR.
    32. Papon v. France, [2001], no. 54210/00, EHRR.
    33. Bellerin Lagares v. Spain, [2003], no. 31548/02, EHRR
    34. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333 (1966)
    35. Mustafa Kamal v. The United Kingdom, [2011] no. 31411/07, ECHR.
    36. Middleton v. The United Kingdom, [1996], no. 23934/94, ECHR.
    37. Sutyagin v. Russia, [2008], no. 30024/02, ECHR
    38. Abdulla Ali v. The United Kingdom, [2015], no. 30971/12, ECHR.

    სქოლიო:

    1. Gogolashvili, J., (2019). Comparative Legal Analysis of the Jury Court, Tbilisi, p. 7
    2. Burnham, W., (2003). Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, Third Edition, p. 86.
    3. Buadze, K., (2014). Some topical issues of the Institute of Jurors and the plea agreement under the criminal procedure legislation of Georgia, Kutaisi, p. 10
    4. Spooner, L., (1852). An Essay on the Trial by Jury, Boston.
    5. John A., (1986). Phillips Thomas C. Thompson, Jurors v. Judges in Later Stuart England: The Penn/ Mead Trial and Bushell's Case, Minnesota, p. 189.
    6. Yorhend, L., & Tsikarishvili, K., (2009). Court of Jurors, Review of Western Systems, Tbilisi, p. 14-14.
    7. Ibid., Vol. IV, 349
    8. Vogler, R., (2001). The International Development of the Jury: The Role of the British Empire; 72 International Review of Penal Law, p. 525
    9. Park, R. Y., (2010). The Globalization of the Jury Trial: Lessons and Insights from Korea, American Journal of Comparative Law, p. 3.
    10. Law of the Parliament of Georgia and the Republic of Georgia of January 17, 1919 "Introduction of Jurors", Collection of Laws and Government Decrees, Part I, Issue of the Codification Department of the Ministry of Justice, 1919, N1 (January 31).
    11. Georgia Law on the Senate and the Statute of the Senate, July 29, 1919, Publication of the Codification Department of the Ministry of Justice, N13, September 15, 1919.
    12. Jones, S., (1988). The Establishment of Soviet Power in Transcaucasia: The Case of Georgia 1921-1928, XL SOVIET STUDIES 616, 616.
    13. Sally Lloyd-Bostock and Cheryl Thomas, Counting the Cost of Conscience: Juries and Jury Reform in England and Wales, LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS, Forthcoming.
    14. Johnson, D., (1996). Trial by Jury in Ireland 1860-1914. 17 LEGAL HISTORY 270 at 273-7.
    15. O’ malley 807
    16. Nachkebia, G., Lekveishvili, M., Shalikashvili, M., Ivanidze, M., Tumanishvili, G., Gogniashvili, N., & Bokhashvili, N. (2013). Juror Institute in Georgia, Tbilisi, p. 20.
    17. Jackson and Doran, (1997). “Judge and Jury: Towards a New Division of Labour in Criminal Trials”, 60 M.L.R. 759.
    18. The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, on the other hand, eliminated the maximum age limit, making all citizens aged 18 and above eligible for jury duty unless excluded or disqualified.
    19. Juries Act 1976, First Schedule, as amended by Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, s.64
    20. Judges and former judges; coroners; practicing solicitors and barristers; persons, including apprentices, working in solicitors' offices; members of the Garda; members of the permanent defense forces; staff of the probation and welfare service; court employees and others are among those who are ineligible. Individuals with certain disabilities are also disqualified. Persons who are unable to read or who have a lasting handicap that makes performing the responsibilities of a jury impossible are unable to serve as jurors. All members of either House of the Oireachtas, all people in holy orders and sworn members of religious organizations, as well as practicing doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, veterinary surgeons, and pharmaceutical chemists, are all exempt as of right
    21. Jury Service Law Reform Commission Report 2013, p. 91.
    22. A person may not participate in a criminal trial as a juror if they are a state-political official; an investigator; a policeman; a clergyman; a psychologist; a Psychiatry; a lawyer; a participant in the criminal proceedings in the mentioned case; is accused; Enlisted in the Georgian Armed Forces and has such a limitation of ability as to prevent him from performing his duties as a juror.
    23. Citizen of Georgia Anna Jalaghonia v. Parliament of Georgia
    24. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (Stationery Office, London, 2001), Chap.5.
    25. Williams v Florida 399 US 78 (1970).
    26. Walsh J. in De Burca v Attorney-General [1976] I.R. 38 at 67
    27. O'Malley, The Criminal Process, 1st Ed. 2009 20-35.
    28. Criminal Procedure Code of the Independent Republic of Georgia https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/90034?publication=137 [Last seen: 10 June, 2022]
    29. O'Malley, The Criminal Process, 1st Ed. 2009, 20-14.
    30. Chachua, F., (2005). Student Forum, Basic Trends in the Origin and Development of Jurors, Georgian Law Review, 8. p. 4.
    31. Diasamidze, F., (2020). Overview of the Jury Judicial System in Georgia and Ways to Improve It, Tbilisi, p. 323.
    32. Katie Quinn, Jury trial in republic of Ireland, p. 205.
    33. Criminal Procedure Code of the Independent Republic of Georgia, Article 28. https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/90034?publication=137 [Last seen: 10 June, 2022]
    34. Jury Service Law Reform Commission Report (2013), p 113-114.
    35. Rekhviashvili, T., (2010). Court of Jurors, Tbilisi, p. 16. 36 Ibid., p. 147.
    36. Ibid., p. 147.
    37. Criminal Procedure Code of the Independent Republic of Georgia, Article 261. https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/90034?publication=137 [Last seen: 10 June, 2022]
    38. Section 25 Criminal Justice Act 1984.
    39. Sally Lioyd-Bostock Theryl Thomas, decline of the "Little Parlament", Juries and Jury Reform in England and Wales, 62 Law & Contemp. Probs. 7, 36-37 (Spring 1999).
    40. People (DPP) v. Nevin [2003] 3 I.R. 321 at 327-348.
    41. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Report Cmnd 2263 (HMSO, London, 1993), p.124.
    42. Barata, F., (2019). The Media and Crime Information the Tony King Case and Media Distortions, p. 1
    43. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 US 333 (1966).
    44. Mustafa Kamal v. The United Kingdom, [2011] no. 31411/07, ECHR
    45. Middleton v. The United Kingdom, [1996], no. 23934/94, ECHR
    46. Sutyagin v. Russia, [2008], no. 30024/02, ECHR.
    47. Abdulla Ali v. The United Kingdom, [2015], no. 30971/12, ECHR
    48. Widman n. Jury Court, Law and Contemporary Problems 1999, p. 122.
    49. Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], [2010] no. 926/05, EHRR.
    50. Shala v. Norway, [2012] no. 1195/10, EHRR.
    51. R v. Belgium, [1992] no. 15957/90, EHRR
    52. Zarouali v. Belgium, [1994], no. 20664/92, EHRR.
    53. Planka v. Austria, [1996], no. 25852/94, EHRR.
    54. Saric v. Denmark, [1999], no. 31913/96, EHRR.
    55. Papon v. France, [2001], no. 54210/00, EHRR.
    56. Bellerin Lagares v. Spain, [2003], no. 31548/02, EHRR.
    57. Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], [2010] no. 926/05, Paragraphs 71-79, EHRR
    58. Yorhendi L., Tsikarishvili K., Court of Jurors. Review of Western Systems, Bona Causa, Tbilisi 2009 p. 69.
    59. Roberts, P., (2011). Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Require Reasoned Verdicts in Criminal Trials? Human Rights Law Review, N11(2) pp. 213-235.
    60. Rhodes, D., (2010). Quixotic Endeavours, 154 Solicitors Journal, p. 6.
    61. Roberts, P., (2011). Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Require Reasoned Verdicts in Criminal Trials? Human Rights Law Review N11(2) pp. 213-235.
    62. Hans, V., & Germaine, C., (2011). The French Jury at a Crossroads, Chicago – Kent Law Review, 762, Vol. 86:2.
    63. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S 745, 103 S. Ct 3308, 77 L.Ed. 2 d 087 (1983).
    64. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1966. Article 14 (5).
    გამოქვეყნების საფასური
    უფასო
    მთავარი რედაქტორი
    იოსებ კელენჯერიძე
    გამოქვეყნების ენა
    ინგლისური
    ქართული

    dealSeal

    Copyright ©2022 ყველა უფლება დაცულია