TOWARDS A MUTATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF CRIMINAL LAW IN FRENCH AND BRITISH COURTS? THE INFLUENCE OF THE PART PLAYED BY JURIES ON JUDGES’ DISCOURSE

Abstract

Until recently juries played an essential part in most British criminal trials save for those of non-indictable
offences. Conversely in France criminal trials have until now been run by judges only except for the most important
offences called “crimes”. This is due to evolve in the near future. Since 2007 the Crown Court has been able to hold a
criminal trial without a jury. The first Crown Court trial without a jury took place in 2009. On the contrary French
Parliament prompted by former President Sarkozy passed a law in August 2011 (which came into force in January
2012) introducing juries in most criminal trials. These countries have opposite legal systems (a common law one for
Britain and a civil law one for France) and different procedural rules but they share the same constitutional values (at
national and European levels) such as everyone's right to a fair trial. Today both countries are advocating major changes
to the role played by citizens (as judges of fact) in criminal trials. British citizens who were likely to be called as jurors
now have a lesser say than their French counterparts who will be more involved in criminal litigation. Behind the
political, sociological, human and financial reasons which may underpin these major changes, we will consider to what
extent and how the language of criminal law has been, and will continue being affected by the evolving role given to the
People. Through the consideration of a number of statutory or judicial documents, we will try to determine the message
which the British and French governments are trying to convey to their citizens whether they are potential jurors or alleged
offenders and more generally how these changes may affect people's perception of Justice.