1. 1
CHAPTER – I INTRODUCTION
The essential object of criminal law is to protect society against criminals and law-
breakers. For this purpose the law holds out threats of punishments to prospective
lawbreakers as well as attempts to make the actual offenders suffer the prescribed
punishments for their crimes. Therefore, criminal law, in its wider sense, consists
of both the substantive criminal law and the procedural (or adjective) criminal law.
Substantive criminal law defines offences and prescribes punishments for the
same, while the procedural law administers the substantive law.
Therefore the two main statues which deals with administration of criminal cases
in our country are criminal procedure code i.e. Cr pc and Indian penal code i.e. Ipc
being procedural and substantive respectively. However with the changing times
the societal norms also change and people who are part of this society have to
accept this change either by way of compromise or any other way in order to adjust
and make them still the part of the very same society. In earlier days there was no
criminal law in uncivilized society. Every man was liable to be attacked in his
person or property at any time by any one. The person attacked either succumbed
or over-powered his opponent. "A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, a life for a
life" was the forerunner of criminal justice. As time advanced, the injured person
agreed to accept compensation, instead of killing his adversary. Subsequently, a
sliding scale came into existence for satisfying ordinary offences. Such a system
gave birth to archaic criminal law.
For a long time, the application of these principles remained with the parties
themselves, but gradually this function came to be performed by the State. The
germs of criminal jurisprudence came into existence in India from the time of
Manu.

2. 2
In the category of crimes Manu has recognized assault, theft, robbery, false
evidence, slander, criminal breach of trust, cheating, adultery and rape. The king
protected his subjects and the subjects in return owed him allegiance and paid him
revenue. The king administered justice himself, and, if busy, the matter was
entrusted to a Judge. If a criminal was fined, the fine went to the king's treasury,
and was not given as compensation to the injured party.
Later with the advent of western jurisprudence and passing of various charters and
commissions and the advent of British rule the Indian society succumbed or we can
probably say adjusted or adapted and aligned itself to the adversarial system of
justice dispensation which prevails even today but with a lot of changes which
have been time and again being made to it to suit to the needs of the changing
times. In today‘s world one needs to have a receptive, broad and open mind in
order to solve various problems which are discussed in chapter one being faced by
our justice system. Since it is evident that a change is required in our criminal
justice system and there is a need to adhere to recourse to alternative methods of
dispute resolution even in criminal cases instead of making a major change we
firstly have to see the common features of a trial and the procedure which is
followed by our courts or system for the administration of criminal justice and its
flaws which is discussed as further.
At the outset of this chapter the researcher would like to state that owing to paucity
of time and nature of topic selected the researcher has limited his scope of study to
a certain specific offences only and would be dealing with them and the lacuna
which exists in the administration procedure followed and which particular
technique of ADR can be used to curb the said problems and side by side would
result in a fair and expeditious trial.

3. 3
1) Criminology
Criminology is the scientific study of the nature, extent, causes, and control of
criminal behavior in both the individual and in society. Criminology is an
interdisciplinary field in the behavioral sciences, drawing especially upon the
research of sociologists (particularly in the sociology of
deviance), psychologists and psychiatrists, social anthropologists as well as on
writings in law.
Areas of research in criminology include the incidence, forms, causes and
consequences of crime, as well as social and governmental regulations and reaction
to crime. For studying the distribution and causes of crime, criminology mainly
relies upon quantitative methods. The term criminology was coined in 1885 by
Italian law professor Raffaele Garofalo as criminological. Later, French
anthropologist Paul Topinard used the analogous French term criminologie.
2) Definition of Administration of Justice
The Administration of Justice Program involves the study of the theory and
practice of law enforcement, police work, the court and corrections systems. Law
enforcement, whether as a line police officer, deputy sheriff, marshal, or state
traffic officer, offers a rewarding opportunity to serve society. Specialized
officers such as game wardens, forest rangers, or criminal investigators make
unique contributions throughout our state and nation. They investigate crime,
present cases in court and render other service to the justice system and the
people.
The personnel, activity and structure of the justice system - courts and police - in
the detection, investigation, apprehension, interviewing and trial of persons

4. 4
suspected of crime. In R. v Sampson, Justice Borins had before him an application
to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to illegal wiretapping.
Therefore, the defence alleged, to allow the tainted evidence would bring the
administration of justice into disrepute: "administration of justice, with particular
reference to the criminal law, is a compendious term that stands for all the
complexes of activity that operate to bring the substantive law of crime to bear, or
to keep it from coming to bear, on persons who are suspected of having committed
crimes.
It refers to the rules of law that govern the detection, investigation,
apprehension, interviewing and trial of persons suspected of crime and those
persons whose responsibility it is to work within these rules. The administration of
justice is not confined to the courts; it encompasses officers of the law and others
whose duties are necessary to ensure that the courts function effectively. The
concern of the administration of justice is the fair, just and impartial upholding of
rights, and punishment of wrongs, according to the rule of law."
3) Meaning of Administration of justice
Administration of justice means management of the judicial system. The objective of it is to
guarantee the individuals freedom and to give protection to their rights. A person dejected from
all sides knocks at the door of justice; hence the acquisition of justice is the natural desire of a
human being. If he is returned even from that door the very purpose of establishment of the state
is defeated. It is due to the significance of justice that during the various periods of history no
ruler could deny the importance of it. The only reason behind it was that it was the
judiciary of the time that guaranteed and protected the rights of the people. Where the
government exceeded the limitsof its powers and interfered in their lawful rights and freedom it
was the Judiciary that came to the rescue of the oppressed subjects.

5. 5
Judiciary is supreme over executive and legislature in the sense that the
laws however ideal and good those may be, and the executive however honest and efficient may
be, the disputes do arise among the people and until those are not determined and decided
correctly and the right owner is not provided his due right, the peace cannot come in the society.
Thus justice is prior to peace. A country may survive even in the presence of the worst and
harshest laws but it cannot where there is no justice. Legislature makes laws with the intention
that Judiciary should decide accordingly. Executive has the power and force to make the people
abide by the decisions of the Judiciary. Advancement and progress of every society depends
upon the good administration of justice. Where administration of justice is destroyed the society
perishes in no time.
To maintain internal peace and defend against external aggression are the
two main functions of a state in the modern sense. Internal peace requires the rights guaranteed
by law are fully protected. If there is any violation there must be an arrangement where the
complainant may go and seek his remedy. To provide justice to its citizens is the basic
responsibility of the State. And to achieve this and practically each state is to establish
institutions to run its affairs. And one such institution is Judiciary. It is established to
administer justice among the people
4) School of thought
In the mid-18th century criminology arose as social philosophers gave thought to crime and
concepts of law. Over time, several schools of thought have developed. There were three main
schools of thought in early criminological theory spanning the period from the mid-18th century
to the mid-twentieth century: Classical, Positive, and Chicago. These schools of thought were
superseded by several contemporary paradigms of criminology, such as the sub-culture, control,
strain, labeling, critical criminology, cultural criminology, postmodern criminology, feminist
criminology and others discussed below.

6. 6
5) Classical School
The Classical School, which developed in the mid 18th century, was based
on utilitarianphilosophy. Cesare Beccaria, author of On Crimes and Punishments (1763–
64), Jeremy Bentham, inventor of the panopticon, and other classical school philosophers argued
that:
1. People have free will to choose how to act.
2. Deterrence is based upon the notion of the human being as a 'hedonist' who
seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and a 'rational calculator' weighing up the
costs and benefits of the consequences of each action. Thus, it ignores the
possibility of irrationality and unconscious drives as motivational factors.
3. Punishment (of sufficient severity) can deter people from crime, as the costs
(penalties) outweigh benefits, and that severity of punishment should be
proportionate to the crime.
4. The more swift and certain the punishment, the more effective it is in
deterring criminal behavior.
The Classical school of thought came about at a time when major reform
in penology occurred, with prisons developed as a form of punishment. Also, this
time period saw many legal reforms, the French Revolution, and the development
of the legal system in theUnited States.
6) Positivist School
The Positivist school presumes that criminal behavior is caused by internal and
external factors outside of the individual's control. Thescientific method was
introduced and applied to study human behavior. Positivism can be broken up into
three segments which include biological, psychological and social positivism.

7. 7
7) Italian School
Cesare Lombroso was an Italian Sociologist working in the late 19th century who
is sometimes regarded as the father of criminology. He was one of the largest
contributors to biological positivism and was founder of the Italian school of
criminology.
Lombroso took a scientific approach, insisting on empirical evidence, for studying
crime. Considered as the founder of criminal anthropology he suggested that
physiological traits such as the measurements of one's cheek bones or hairline, or a
cleft palate, considered to be throwbacks to Neanderthal man, were indicative of
"atavistic" criminal tendencies. This approach, influenced by the earlier theory
ofphrenology and by Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, has been
superseded. Enrico Ferri, a student of Lombroso, believed that social as well as
biological factors played a role, and held the view that criminals should not be held
responsible when factors causing their criminality were beyond their control.
Criminologists have since rejected Lombroso's biological theories, with control
groups not used in his studies.
8) Sociological positivism
Sociological positivism suggests that societal factors such as poverty, membership
of subcultures, or low levels of education can predispose people to crime. Adolphe
Quetelet made use of data and statistical analysis to gain insight into the
relationship between crime and sociological factors. He found that
age, gender, poverty, education, and alcohol consumption were important factors
related to crime. Rawson W. Rawson utilized crime statistics to suggest a link
between population density and crime rates, with crowded cities creating an
environment conducive for crime.

8. 8
Joseph Fletcher and John Glyde also presented papers to the Statistical Society of
London on their studies of crime and its distribution. Henry
Mayhew used empirical methods and an ethnographic approach to address social
questions and poverty, and presented his studies in London Labour and the London
Poor. Émile Durkheim viewed crime as an inevitable aspect of society, with
uneven distribution of wealth and other differences among people.
9) Differential Association (Subcultural)
Crime is learned through association. The criminal acts learned might be generally
condoning criminal conduct or be justifying crime only under specific
circumstances. Interacting with antisocial peers is a major cause of crime. Criminal
behavior will be repeated and become chronic if reinforced. When
criminal subcultures exist, many individuals can learn associatively to commit
crime and crime rates may increase in those specific locations.
10) Chicago School
The Chicago school arose in the early twentieth century, through the work
of Robert E. Park, Ernest Burgess, and other urban sociologists at the University of
Chicago. In the 1920s, Park and Burgess identified five concentric zones that often
exist as cities grow, including the "zone in transition" which was identified as most
volatile and subject to disorder. In the 1940s, Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw
focused on juvenile delinquents, finding that they were concentrated in the zone of
transition.
Chicago School sociologists adopted a social ecology approach to studying cities,
and postulated that urban neighborhoods with high levels of poverty often
experience breakdown in the social structure and institutions such
as family and schools.

9. 9
This results in social disorganization, which reduces the ability of these institutions
to control behavior and creates an environment ripe for deviant behavior. Other
researchers suggested an added social-psychological link. Edwin
Sutherland suggested that people learn criminal behavior from older, more
experienced criminals that they may associate with.
11) Social structure theories
This theory is applied to a variety of approaches within criminology in particular
and in sociology more generally as a conflict theory orstructural conflict
perspective in sociology and sociology of crime. As this perspective is itself broad
enough, embracing as it does a diversity of positions.
12) Social disorganization (neighborhoods)
Social disorganization theory is based on the work of Henry McKay and Clifford
R. Shaw of the Chicago School. Social disorganization theory postulates that
neighborhoods plagued with poverty and economic deprivation tend to experience
high rates of population turnover. These neighborhoods also tend to have high
population heterogeneity. With high turnover, informal social structure often fails
to develop, which in turn makes it difficult to maintain social order in a
community.

10. 10
13) Social ecology
Since the 1950s, social ecology studies have built on the social disorganization
theories. Many studies have found that crime rates are associated with poverty,
disorder, high numbers of abandoned buildings, and other signs of community
deterioration.
As working and middle class people leave deteriorating neighborhoods, the most
disadvantaged portions of the population may remain. William Julius
Wilson suggested a poverty "concentration effect", which may cause
neighborhoods to be isolated from the mainstream of society and become prone
to violence.
14) Strain theory (social class)
Strain theory, (also known as Mertonian Anomie), advanced by American
sociologist Robert Merton, suggests that mainstream culture, especially in
the United States, is saturated with dreams of opportunity, freedom and prosperity;
as Merton put it, the American Dream. Most people buy into this dream and it
becomes a powerful cultural and psychological motivation. Merton also used the
term anomie, but it meant something slightly different for him than it did
for Durkheim.
Merton saw the term as meaning a dichotomy between what society expected of its
citizens, and what those citizens could actually achieve. Therefore, if the social
structure of opportunities is unequal and prevents the majority from realizing the
dream, some of them will turn to illegitimate means (crime) in order to realize it.
Others will retreat or drop out into deviant subcultures (gang members, "hobos":
urban homeless drunks and drug abusers).

11. 11
I) Sub culture theory
Following on from the Chicago school and Strain Theory, and also drawing
on Edwin Sutherland's idea of differential association, subcultural theorists focused
on small cultural groups fragmenting away from the mainstream to form their own
values and meanings about life.
Albert K. Cohen tied anomie theory with Freud's reaction formation idea,
suggesting that delinquency among lower class youths is a reaction against
the social norms of the middle class.Some youth, especially from poorer areas
where opportunities are scarce, might adopt social norms specific to those places
which may include "toughness" and disrespect for authority. Criminal acts may
result when youths conform to norms of the deviant subculture.
Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin suggested that delinquency can result from
differential opportunity for lower class youth. Such youths may be tempted to take
up criminal activities, choosing an illegitimate path that provides them more
lucrative economic benefits than conventional, over legal options such as minimum
wage-paying jobs available to them.
British subcultural theorists focused more heavily on the issue of class, where
some criminal activities were seen as 'imaginary solutions' to the problem of
belonging to a subordinate class. A further study by the Chicago school looked at
gangs and the influence of the interaction of gang leaders under the observation of
adults.

12. 12
II) Control theories
Another approach is made by the social bond or social control theory. Instead of
looking for factors that make people become criminal, these theories try to explain
why people do not become criminal. Travis Hirschi identified four main
characteristics: "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules",
"commitment to achievement" and "involvement in conventional activities".The
more a person features those characteristics, the less the chances are that he or she
becomes deviant (or criminal). On the other hand, if those factors are not present in
a person, it is more likely that he or she might become criminal.
Hirschi expanded on this theory, with the idea that a person with low self control is
more likely to become criminal. A simple example: someone wants to have a big
yacht, but does not have the means to buy one. If the person cannot exert self-
control, he or she might try to get the yacht (or the means for it) in an illegal way;
whereas someone with high self-control will (more likely) either wait or deny
themselves that want, or seek an intelligent intermediate solution such as to join a
yacht club to obtain access to using a yacht by group consolidation of resources
without violating social norms.
Social bonds, through peers, parents, and others, can have a countering effect on
one's low self-control. For families of low socio-economic status, a factor that
distinguishes families with delinquent children from those who are not delinquent
is the control exerted by parents or chaperonage. In addition, theorists such as
Matza and Sykes argued that criminals are able to temporarily neutralize internal
moral and social behavioral constraints through techniques of neutralization

13. 13
III) Symbolic interactions
Symbolic interactionism draws on the phenomenology of Edmund
Husserl and George Herbert Mead, as well as subcultural theory andconflict
theory.This school of thought focused on the relationship between the powerful
state, media and conservative ruling elite on the one hand, and the less powerful
groups on the other. The powerful groups had the ability to become the 'significant
other' in the less powerful groups' processes of generating meaning. The former
could to some extent impose their meanings on the latter, and therefore they were
able to 'label' minor delinquent youngsters as criminal.
These youngsters would often take on board the label, indulge in crime more
readily and become actors in the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' of the powerful groups.
Later developments in this set of theories were by Howard Becker and Edwin
Lemert, in the mid 20th century.[26]
Stanley Cohen who developed the concept of
"moral panic" (describing societal reaction to spectacular, alarming social
phenomena such as post-World War Two youth cultures (e.g. the Mods and
Rockers in the UK in 1964, AIDS and football hooliganism).
IV) Labeling Theory
Labeling theory refers to an individual being labeled in a particular way and was
studied in great detail by Howard Becker .It arrives originally from sociology but
is regularly used in criminological studies. It is said that when someone is given
the label of a criminal, they may reject it or accept it and go on to commit crime.
Even those that initially reject the label can eventually accept it as the label
becomes more well known particularly amongst their peers. This can become even
more profound when the labels are about deviancy and it is said they can lead to

14. 14
deviancy amplification. Klein (1986) conducted a test which showed that labeling
theory affected some youth offenders but not others.
V) Individual theories
a) Trait theories
At the other side of the spectrum, criminologist Lonnie Athens developed a theory
about how a process of brutalization by parents or peers that usually occurs in
childhood results in violent crimes in adulthood. Richard Rhodes' Why They
Kill describes Athens' observations about domestic and societal violence in the
criminals' backgrounds. Both Athens and Rhodes reject the genetic inheritance
theories.
b) Rational choice theory
Rational choice theory is based on the utilitarian, classical school philosophies
of Cesare Beccaria, which were popularized by Jeremy Bentham. They argued that
punishment, if certain, swift, and proportionate to the crime, was a deterrent for
crime, with risks outweighing possible benefits to the offender. In Dei delitti e
delle pene (On Crimes and Punishments, 1763–1764), Beccaria advocated a
rational penology.
Beccaria conceived of punishment as the necessary application of the law for a
crime: thus, the judge was simply to conform his sentence to the law. Beccaria also
distinguished between crime and sin, and advocated against the death penalty, as
well as torture and inhumane treatments, as he did not consider them as rational
deterrents.

15. 15
This philosophy was replaced by the Positivist and Chicago Schools, and not
revived until the 1970s with the writings of James Q. Wilson, Gary Becker's 1965
article titled "Crime and Punishment "and George Stigler's 1970 article "The
Optimum Enforcement of Laws".
Rational choice theory argues that criminals , like other people, weigh costs/risks
and benefits when deciding whether or not to commit crime and think
in economic terms. They will also try to minimize risks of crime by considering the
time, place, and other situational factors.
Gary Becker, for example, acknowledged that many people operate under a high
moral and ethical constraint, but considered that criminals rationally see that the
benefits of their crime outweigh the cost such as the probability of apprehension,
conviction, punishment, as well as their current set of opportunities. From the
public policy perspective, since the cost of increasing the fine is marginal to that of
the cost of increasing surveillance, one can conclude that the best policy is to
maximize the fine and minimize surveillance.
With this perspective, crime prevention or reduction measures can be devised that
increase effort required to commit the crime, such as target hardening. Rational
choice theories also suggest that increasing risk of offending and likelihood of
being caught, through added surveillance, police or security guard presence,
added street lighting, and other measures, are effective in reducing crime.
One of the main differences between this theory and Jeremy Bentham's rational
choice theory, which had been abandoned in criminology, is that if Bentham
considered it possible to completely annihilate crime (through the panopticon),
Becker's theory acknowledged that a society could not eradicate crime beneath a
certain level.

16. 16
For example, if 25% of a supermarket's products were stolen, it would be very easy
to reduce this rate to 15%, quite easy to reduce it until 5%, difficult to reduce it
under 3% and nearly impossible to reduce it to zero (a feat which would cost the
supermarket so much in surveillance, etc., that it would outweigh the benefits).
This reveals that the goals of utilitarianism and classical liberalism have to be
tempered and reduced to more modest proposals to be practically applicable.
Such rational choice theories, linked to neoliberalism, have been at the basics
of crime prevention through environmental design and underpin the Market
Reduction Approach to theft by Mike Sutton, which is a systematic toolkit for
those seeking to focus attention on "crime facilitators" by tackling the markets for
stolen goods that provide motivation for thieves to supply them by theft.
c) Routine activity theory
Routine activity theory, developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen, draws
upon control theories and explains crime in terms of crime opportunities that occur
in everyday life. A crime opportunity requires that elements converge in time and
place including
(1) A motivated offender
(2) Suitable target or victim
(3) Lack of a capable guardian.
A guardian at a place, such as a street, could include security guards or even
ordinary pedestrians who would witness the criminal act and possibly intervene or
report it to police.
Routine activity theory was expanded by John Eck, who added a fourth element of
"place manager" such as rental property managers who can
take nuisance abatement measures.

17. 17
d) Biosocial theories
Biosocial criminology is an interdisciplinary field that aims to explain crime and
antisocial behavior by exploring both biological factors and environmental factors.
While contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories,
biosocial criminology also recognizes the potential contributions of fields such
as genetics, neuropsychology, and evolutionary psychology.
e) Marxist Criminology
In 1968, young British sociologists formed the National Deviance Conference
(NDC) group. The group was restricted to academics and consisted of 300
members. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young - members of the NDC -
rejected previous explanations of crime and deviance. Thus, they decided to pursue
a new Marxist criminological approach. In The New Criminology, they argued
against the biological "positivism" perspective represented by Lombroso, Hans
Eysenck and Gordon Trasler.
According to the Marxist perspective on crime, "defiance is normal - the sense that
men are now consciously involved…in assuring their human diversity." Thus
Marxists criminologists argued in support of society in which the facts of human
diversity, be it social or personal, would not be criminalized.They, further,
attributed the processes of crime-creation not to genetic or psychological facts, but
rather to the material basis of a given society.

18. 18
CHAPTER – II
PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The procedure of administration of criminal justice in our country is divided into
three stages namely investigation, inquiry and trial. The Criminal procedure code
1973 provides for the procedure to be followed in investigation, inquiry and trial,
for every offence under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law. Now before
discussing the procedure of administration there are certain basic terms one should
be aware of these being;
Section 2 (g) defines ―Inquiry‖ means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted
under this Code by a Magistrate or court; and section 2 (h) defines "Investigation"
includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is
authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf,
Therefore for a dispute to be resolved the said case has to go through the three
stages i.e. inquiry investigation and trial and after this process is completed the
judgment of the court is passed by the judge who decides the case and its outcome.
Although the said process appears to simple and plain on paper but in practicality
is cumbersome and time consuming which is defeating the main essence of a
criminal system i.e. fair and expeditious justice and hence warrants a change now.
The three stages: namely investigation, inquiry and trial are as follows
Investigation is a preliminary stage conducted by the police and usually starts after
the recording of a First Information Report (FIR) in the police station. Section
154 provides that any information received in the police station in respect of a
cognizable offence shall be reduced into writing, got signed by the informant and
entered in the concerned register.

19. 19
Section 156(1) requires the concerned officer to investigate the facts and
circumstances of such a case without any order from the Magistrate in this behalf.
If Magistrate receives information about commission of a cognizable offence he
can order an investigation. In such cases citizen is spared the trouble and expense
of investigating and prosecuting the case.
Section 157 of the code provides for the procedure for investigation which is as; if
the officer-in-charge of a police station suspects the commission of an offence,
from statement of FIR or when the magistrate directs or otherwise, the officer or
any subordinate officer is duty-bound to proceed to the spot to investigate facts and
circumstances of the case and if necessary, takes measures for the discovery and
arrest of the offender.
It primarily consists of ascertaining facts and circumstances of the case, includes
all the efforts of a police officer for collection of evidence: proceeding to the spot;
ascertaining facts and circumstances; discovery and arrest of the suspected
offender; collection of evidence relating to the commission of offence, which may
consist of the examination of various persons including the accused and taking of
their statements in writing and the search of places or seizure of things considered
necessary for the investigation and to be produced at the trial; formation of opinion
as to whether on the basis of the material collected there is a case to place the
accused before a magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for filing
the charge-sheet. The investigation procedure ends with a submission of a police
report to the magistrate under section 173 of the code this report is basically a
conclusion which an investigation officer draws on the basis of evidence collected.

20. 20
Now the second phase is, Inquiry dealt under sections 177-189 of the code which
consists of a magistrate, either on receiving a police report or upon a complaint by
any other person, being satisfied of the facts.
Lastly, the third stage is trial. Trial is the judicial adjudication of a person‘s guilt or
innocence.Under the Crpc, criminal trials have been categorized into three
divisions having different procedures, called warrant, summons and summary
trials. Section 2(x) of the Crpc defines Warrant-case i.e. ―Warrant-case‖ means a
case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for a term exceeding two years; A warrant case relates to offences
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding
two years. Trial of warrant cases is dealt under sections 238-250 of the code.
The Crpc provides for two types of procedure for the trial of warrant cases i.e. By a
magistrate, tribal by a magistrate, viz., those instituted upon a police report and
those instituted upon complaint. In respect of cases instituted on police report, it
provides for the magistrate to discharge the accused upon consideration of the
police report and documents sent with it. In respect of the cases instituted
otherwise than on police report, the magistrate hears the prosecution and takes the
evidence. If there is no case, the accused is discharged. If the accused is not
discharged, the magistrate holds regular trial after framing the charge, etc. In
respect of offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment for a
term exceeding seven years, the trial is conducted in a session‘s court after being
committed or forwarded to the court by a magistrate.

21. 21
A summons case means a case relating to an offence not being a warrant case,
implying all cases relating to offences punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding two years. In respect of summons cases, there is no need to frame a
charge. The court gives substance of the accusation, which is called ―notice‖, to the
accused when the person appears in pursuance to the summons.
The court has the power to convert a summons case into a warrant case, if the
magistrate thinks that it is in the interest of justice. The provisions regarding the
procedure to be followed in summons case is dealt under section 251-259 of the
Crpc.
Summary trials are dealt under section 260 – 265 of the Crpc the procedure is as
provided; the high court may empower magistrates of first class to try certain
offences in a summary way where as second class magistrates can summarily try
an offence only if it is punishable only with a fine or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months. In a summary trial no sentence of imprisonment for a term
exceeding three months can be passed in any conviction. The particulars of the
summary trial are entered in the record of the court and in every case which is tried
summarily in which the accused does not plead guilty the magistrate records the
substance of the evidence and a judgment containing a brief statement of the
reasons for the finding

22. 22
The common features of the trials in all three of the aforementioned procedures
may be roughly broken into the following distinct stages:
I) Framing of charge or giving of notice.
This is the beginning of a trial. At this stage, the judge is required to weigh the
evidence for the purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out. In case the material placed before the court
discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained,
the court frames the charge and proceeds with the trial. If, on the contrary, upon
consideration of the record of the case and documents submitted and after hearing
the accused person and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there
is not sufficient ground for proceeding, the judge discharges the accused and
records reasons for doing so.
The words ―not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused‖ mean that
the judge is required to apply a judicial mind in order to determine whether a case
for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It may be better understood by the
proposition that whereas a strong suspicion may not take the place of proof at the
trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the court in order to frame
a charge against the accused person.
The charge is read over and explained to the accused. If pleading guilty, the judge
shall record the plea and may, with discretion convict him however if the accused
pleads not guilty and claims trial, then trial begins. Trial starts after the charge has
been framed and the stage preceding it is called inquiry. After the inquiry, the
charge is prepared and after the formulation of the charge the trial of the accused
starts. A charge is nothing but formulation of the accusation made against a person
who is to face trial for a specified offence. It sets out the offence that was allegedly
committed.

23. 23
II) Recording of prosecution evidence
After the charge is framed, the prosecution is asked to examine its witnesses before
the court. The statement of witnesses is on oath. This is called examination-in-
chief. The accused has a right to cross-examine all the witnesses presented by the
prosecution Section 309 of the Crpc further provides that the proceeding shall be
held as expeditiously as possible and in particular, when the examination of
witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued day-to-day until all the
witnesses in attendance have been examined.
III) Statement of accused
The court has powers to examine the accused at any stage of inquiry or trial for the
purpose of eliciting any explanation against incriminating circumstances appearing
before it. However, it is mandatory for the court to question the accused after
examining the evidence of the prosecution if it incriminates the accused. This
examination is without oath and before the accused enters a defense. The purpose
of this examination is to give the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain
incriminating facts and circumstances in the case.
IV) Defence Evidence
If after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing
the prosecution and defence, the judge considers that there is no evidence that the
accused has committed the offence, the judge is required to record the order of
acquittal .However, when the accused is not acquitted for absence of evidence, a
defence must be entered and evidence adduced in its support. The accused may
produce witnesses who may be willing to depose in support of the defence. The
accused person is also a competent witness under the law. The accused may apply
for the issue of process for compelling attendance of any witness or the production

24. 24
of any document or thing. The witnesses produced by him are cross-examined by
the prosecution.
The accused person is entitled to present evidence in case he so desires after
recording of his statement. The witnesses produced by him are cross-examined by
the prosecution. Most accused persons do not lead defence evidence. One of the
major reasons for this is that India follows the common law system where the
burden of proof is on the prosecution, and the degree of proof required in a
criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt.
V) Final arguments
This is the final stage of the trial. The provisions of the Crpc provide that when
examination of the witnesses for the defence, if any, is complete, the prosecutor
shall sum up the prosecution case and the accused is entitled to reply. The same is
provided for under section 234 of the code.
VI) Judgment
After conclusion of arguments by the prosecutor and defence, the judge
pronounces his judgment in the trial. Here it is relevant to mention that the Crpc
also contains detailed provisions for compounding of offences. It lists various
compoundable offences under table 1 of the Indian Penal Code which may be
compounded by the specified aggrieved party without the permission of the court
and certain offences under table 2 that can be compounded only after securing the
permission of the court compounding of offences also brings a trial to an end.
Under the Crpc an accused can also be withdrawn from prosecution at any stage of
trial with the permission of the court. If the accused is allowed to be withdrawn

25. 25
from prosecution prior to framing of charge, this is a discharge, while in cases
where such withdrawal is allowed after framing of charge, it is acquittal.
The above described is the process how a trial takes place for dispensation of a
criminal case although this six stepped procedure looks plain and simple it suffers
from many inherent lacunas which become the reasons for delay and hampers an
expeditious trial and not to forget the option of appeal is again there where the state
or the criminal has option to appeal to appellate court and as well as seek a
permission to file a special leave petition to the supreme court where in again all
this process is repeated except for the fact that the supreme court only deals with
cases where there is a question of law involved.
PROBLEMS OF OUR TRIAL PROCEDURE WHICH POSE AS HURDLES
TO SPEEDY DISPENSATION OF CASES;
I) Investigation not rusted by the laws and the court themselves
Investigation though is the foundation of the Criminal Justice System but is
unfortunate that it is not trusted by the laws and the courts themselves the same can
be explained by a perusal of sections 161 and 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code
which provides that the statements of the witnesses examined during investigation
are not admissible and that they can only be used by the defence to contradict the
maker of the statement, the confession made by accused is also not admissible in
evidence. The statements recorded at the earliest stage normally have greater
probative value but can't be used in evidence.

26. 26
II) Suppress of truth and forwarding falsehood.
It is common knowledge that police often use third degree methods during
investigation and there are also allegations that in some cases they try to suppress
truth and put forward falsehood before court for reasons such as corruption or
extraneous influences political or otherwise.
Unless the basic problem of strengthening the foundation is solved the guilty
continue to escape conviction and sometimes even innocent persons may get
implicated and punished.
III) Non co operative attitude due to excessive workload
Secondly the police officers face excessive work load due to lack of manpower and
the public at large is non co-operative because of the public image of the police
officers and there is lack of coordination with other sub-system of the Criminal
Justice System in crime prevention to add to the agony there is a lot of misuse of
bail and anticipatory bail provisions, more over due to Political and executive
interference police is directed for other tasks which are not a part of police
functions. It may be apt to point out that the rank of the IO investigating a case also
has a bearing on the quality of investigation. The minimum rank of a station house
officer (SHO) in the country is sub inspector (SI). However, some of the important
police stations are headed by the officers of the rank of Inspector. It has been
observed that investigations are mostly handled by lower level officers, namely,
HC and ASI etc.

27. 27
IV) Investigation not conducted y police
The senior officers of the police stations, particularly the SHOs generally do not
conduct any investigations themselves. This results in deterioration of quality of
investigations. It is therefore necessary to address ourselves to the problems and
strengthen the investigation agency. Furthermore the common citizen is not aware
of the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. There is a
general feeling that if anyone is a victim of an offence the place he has to go for
relief is the police station. It is very unreasonable and awkward if the police were
to tell him that it is a non-cognizable offence and therefore he should approach the
Magistrate as he cannot entertain such complaint.
V) Investigation rendered fruitless
The investigation of a criminal case, however good and painstaking it may be, will
be rendered fruitless, if the prosecution machinery is indifferent or inefficient. One
of the well-known causes for the failure of a large number of prosecutions is the
poor performance of the prosecution. In practice, the accused on whom the burden
is little engages a very competent lawyer, while, the prosecution, on whom the
burden is heavy to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, is very often
represented by persons of poor competence, and the natural outcome is that the
defence succeeds in creating the reasonable doubt on the mind of the court.
VI) Notorious problem in the trail courts granting of frequent adjourning
The most notorious problem in the functioning of the courts, particularly in the
trial courts is the granting of frequent adjournments on most flimsy grounds. This
malady has considerably eroded the confidence of the people in the judiciary.
Adjournments contribute to delays in the disposal of cases. They also contribute to
hardship, inconvenience and expense to the parties and the witnesses. The witness

28. 28
has no stake in the case and comes to assist the court to dispense justice. He
sacrifices his time and convenience for this. If the case is adjourned he is required
to go to the court repeatedly. He is bound to feel unhappy and frustrated. This also
gives an opportunity to the opposite party to threaten or induce him not to speak
the truth therefore the right to speedy trial is thwarted by repeated adjournments.
VII) Service of summons on the accused
one of the major causes for delay even in the commencement of trial of a criminal
case is service of summons on the accused. The Code of Criminal Procedure
provides for various modes of service. Section 62 of the Code provides that
summons shall be served by a Police Officer, or subject to such rules being framed
by the State Government, by any officer of the Court or other public servant.
Unfortunately rules have not been framed by many State Governments to enable
service otherwise than through police officers. Since the Criminal Procedure Code
itself provides for other means of service namely through registered post in the
case of witnesses, it should also provide for service on accused through facilities of
courier service, fax where available.
VIII) low judge population ratio
our country suffers from low judge population ratio because of which the pendency
of work increases therefore the judges take a long time in delivering judgments this
again adds to enlargement of the time frame of a case to be decided from its
intuition point because of which the litigants feel that litigation is a time
consuming and lengthy procedure the two areas which need special attention for
improving the quality of justice are prescribing required qualifications for the
judges and the quality of training being imparted in the judicial academics.

29. 29
Since the above problems curb the speedy dispensation of cases the researcher in
order to provide or seek a solution for remedying and trying to move away from
the old colonial shackles has undertaken to research upon this topic where the main
research ground would be whether introduction ADR techniques in certain
criminal cases would lead to speedy dispensation of cases without calling in for a
major infrastructural change for this very same purpose the researcher has chosen
six particular sections which would be dealt further where each section would be
explained along with a its classification and which method of trial is followed and
by using a certain technique of ADR in trial of that particular offence would lead to
expeditious and fair trial as when compared to the traditional litigation method ,
The researcher owing to paucity of time and since compulsory compromise is not
possible all criminal cases the researcher has undertaken to propose the following;
Adding more offences under section 320
(1) Table from the table under section 320
(2) i.e. offence which are to be compounded with the permission of the court
should now be allowed to be compounded without eh permission of the court
where both the parties agree to settle the matter and refer the said matters for
mediation instead of normal trial procedure.
IX) Sending all maintenance and family discord matters
Sending all maintenance and family discord matters under section 125 Crpc for
mediation using family group conferencing method instead of normal court trial.

30. 30
Using victim offender mediation method for cases under section 323 IPC i.e.
HURT.
Using victim offender mediation method for cases under section 379 IPC i.e. Theft.
Using victim offender mediation method or early neutral evaluation method for
cases of Criminal breach of trust dealt under section 405-408 IPC.
Sending cases of defamation dealt under section 499 IPC for mediation.
For the sake of brevity the researcher would divide the scope of introducing ADR
techniques into two chapters being scope of ADR in Code of Criminal procedure
where in section 320 and section 125 would be dealt with and the next following
chapter would be discussing about introducing ADR techniques in the substantive
criminal law i.e. IPC and would deal each section as a sub part of the next chapters
where in the following would be its sub –sub parts;

31. 31
CHAPTER- III
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT
TYPES OF THEORIES
Theories may be of following kind:
1. Deterrent Theory
2. Retributive Theory
3. Reformative Theory
4. Expiatory Theory
5. Preventive Theory
Punishment according to dictionary- involves the infliction of pain or forfeiture,
it is infliction of penalty. chastisement or castigation by the judicial arm of the
state. If the sole purpose behind punishment is to cause physical pain to the
wrongdoer, it serves little purpose. However, if punishment is such as leads him
to realize the gravity of the offence committed by him, and to repent at once for
it, it may be said to have achieved its desired effect.
There are many theories of concerning the justification of punishment. It is clear
that the philosophy of punishment will affect the actual standards of liability laid
down by the law.
As SALMON observes, the ends of criminal justice are four in number, and in
respect of the purpose so served by it, punishment may be distinguished as

32. 32
1. - Deterrents
2. - Reventive
3. - Reformative
4. - Retributive.
5. – Expiatory
1) Deterrent theory
punishment is before all things deterrent and the chief end of the law of crime is
to make the evil-doer an example and warning to all who are like minded with
him. According to this theory, offences are result of a conflict between the
interests of the wrong-doer and those of society. The aim of punishment is to
dissolve the conflict of interests by making every offence. ―Avail has vargain to
the offender‖ (famous words of Corne).
This theory has been criticed on the ground that it is ineffective in cases where
crime is committed under severe mental stress. In such cases to punish the
wrongdoer to deter him is meaningless.
2) Preventive theory-
punishment is, preventive or disabling. Its primary and general purpose being to
deter by fear, its secondary and special purpose is wherever possible and
expedient, to prevent a repetition by wrongdoer by the disablement of the
offender. The most effective mode of disablement is the death penalty, which in
practice, in time of peace, is confined to the crime of murder, though it is legally
possible for treason and certain form of piracy and arson.
A similar secondary purpose exists in sub penalties as imprisonment and
forfeiture of office, the suspension of driving licenses and in the old penalty of
exile. The aim of this theory is not to repeat the crime the crime but this theory

33. 33
takes no note of criminal. It prefers to disable the wrong-doer from committing
any more crime but it ignores one of the basic object of the criminal law, i.e. to
reform the criminal.
3) Reformative theory.
A crime is committed as a result of the conflict between the character and the
motive of the criminal. One may commit a crime either because the temptation of
the motive is stronger or because the restrain imposed by character is weaker.
The deterrent theory by showing that crime never pays separate the motive.,
while the reformative theory seems to strengthen the character of the man so that
he may not become victim of his own temptation. This theory would consider
punishment to be curative or to perform the function of medicine.
According to this theory crime is like a disease. . This theory maintains that you
can cure by killing.
The ultimate aim of reformists is to try to bring about a change in the personality
and character of the offender, so as to make him a useful member of society.
4) Retributive theory-
retributive punishment, in the only sense in which it is admissible in any rational
system of administering justice, is that which serves for the satisfaction of that
emotion of retributive indignation which in all healthy communities is strived up
by injustice. This was formerly based on theory of revenge.-―tooth for tooth‖ and
―eye for eye‖.
Today, on the other hand, this theory is based on the idea that punishment is the
necessary alkali to neutralize the evil effects of crime. The idea behind the
retributive punishment is that of the restoration of the moral character, the
appraisement of the disturbed conscience of society itself and the maintenance of
the sovereign power of the state which becomes aggrieved when a crime is
committed and inflicts punishment to set matters of right. Though the system of

34. 34
private revenge has been suppressed, the instincts and emotion that lay at the
root of these feelings are yet present in human nature.
Therefore, according to this moral satisfaction that the society obtains from
punishment can not be ignored.
On the other hand, if the criminal is treated very leniently or even in the midst of
luxury, as the reformative theory would have it, the spirit of vengeance would
not be satisfied and it might find its way through private vengeance. According
to this theory eye for eye and tooth for tooth is deemed to be a complete and
really sufficient rule of natural justice.
In the last, we can easily say that the only logical inference from the
reformative theory, if taken itself, is that they should be abandoned in despairs as
no fit subject for penal discipline. The deterrent and disabling theories on the
other hand, regard such offenders as being pre-eminently those with whom the
criminal law is called upon to deal.
The application of purely reformative theory, therefore would lead to astonishing
and inadmissible results. The perfect idea of criminal justice is based on neither
reformative nor the deterrent principle exclusively, but the result of comprise
between them.
In this it is the deterrent principal which possesses predominant influence. It will
not be out of place to mention here that Gandhi ji ―hate the sin and not the
sinner‖, is merely a philosophical assertion and can not furnish a practical guide
in the administration of justice.

35. 35
5) Expiatory Theory
Expiation both as a theological and as a criminological concept is examined in
conjunction with two sociological concepts—socialization and differential
association—to develop a new perspective on prison rebellions and on both prison
and social reform. In the conventional wisdom, expiation is considered a sound
justification for imprisonment.
A man commits a crime: he must "pay," must atone for it. On the basis of an
examination of the traditional concept of expiation, this article suggests new
implications for the criminal justice system. Studying the implications of
socialization and differential association within a larger, legal- moral dimension
evokes what some might regard—and dismiss out of hand-as a more startling
proposal: that society at large should be held at least partially responsible for
crimes whose guilt is normally imposed solely on the imprisoned offender.
CONTENT OF THE SECTION AND ITS EXPLANATION.
Which technique of ADR to be used for resolution of that dispute and matching the
dispute resolution process which would lead fair and expeditious trial .
A case law showing delay caused due to following of normal trial procedure with
reference to that particular section and how usage of a particular technique of ADR
would resolve the said problem or where already such changes are being
incorporated or have been recommended by the Courts.
Now further we would move to the next chapter where in the researcher would
discuss about introducing ADR techniques in the Code of criminal procedure,
1973.

36. 36
Types and definitions of crime
Both the Positivist and Classical Schools take a consensus view of crime — that a
crime is an act that violates the basic values and beliefs of society. Those values
and beliefs are manifested as laws that society agrees upon.
However, there are two types of laws:
Natural laws are rooted in core values shared by many cultures. Natural laws
protect against harm to persons (e.g. murder, rape, assault) or property (theft,
larceny, robbery), and form the basis of common law systems.
Statutes are enacted by legislatures and reflect current cultural mores, albeit that
some laws may be controversial, e.g. laws that prohibit cannabis use
and gambling. Marxist criminology, Conflict criminology and Critical
Criminology claim that most relationships between state and citizen are non-
consensual and, as such, criminal law is not necessarily representative of public
beliefs and wishes: it is exercised in the interests of the ruling or dominant
class. The more right wing criminologies tend to posit that there is a
consensual social contract between State and citizen.
Therefore, definitions of crimes will vary from place to place, in accordance to the
cultural norms and mores, but may be broadly classified as blue-collar
crime, corporate crime, organized crime, political crime, public order crime, state
crime, state-corporate crime, and white-collar crime. However, there have been
moves in contemporary criminological theory to move away from liberal
pluralism, cultureless and postmodernism by introducing the universal term 'harm'
into the criminological debate as a replacement for the legal term 'crime'.

37. 37
Theory of criminal justice
The theory of criminal justice is the branch of philosophy of law that deals
with criminal justice and in particular punishment. The theory of criminal justice
has deep connections to other areas of philosophy, such as political
philosophy and ethics, as well as to criminal justice in practice.
Some important questions considered in the theory of criminal justice are
What is criminal justice
How is criminal justice distinct from other kinds of justice (or is it in fact
distinct)
Some questions specific to the topic of punishment are
Should we punish
Why should we punish
Whom should we punish
How should we punish
How much should we punish

38. 38
CHAPTER - IV JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
1) How is criminal justice distinct from other kinds of justice
Typically, legal theorists and philosophers consider four distinct kinds of justice:
corrective justice, distributive justice, procedural justice, and retributive justice
Criminal law falls under retributive justice, a theory of justice that considers
proportionate punishment a morally acceptable response to crime. Retributive
justice is perhaps best captured by the phrase lex talionis (the principle of "an eye
for an eye"), which itself traces back to the book of Exodus.
The principle of lex talionis received its most well known philosophical defense
from Immanuel Kant . Criminal law is no longer considered a purely retributive
undertaking; deterrence figures prominently in the justification of the practice and
in the rules themselves.
2) Criminal justice systems
There are at least two questions, raised by H. L. A. Hart, in connection with
criminal justice which do not directly concern punishment but are more closely
related to a criminal justice system as a whole.
Why establish any institution of punishment at all?
Why establish this institution with its special concepts, principles of legislation,
adjudicative procedures, and permissible penalties rather than some other
panochas.

39. 39
3) Punishment
Different theories of criminal justice can usually be distinguished in how they
answer questions about punishment. To avoid issues of semantics, in this section
we must agree that punishment is a penalty imposed by a legal system along with
(or because of) a stigma of wrong doing or law breaking. This definition
deliberately excludes penalties unrelated to wrongdoing or lawbreaking, even
when imposed by a legal system. It also distinguishes or at least restricts this
definition from the one used in operant conditioning.
4) Should we punish
The answer to this question is important as a negative answer makes further
questions about punishment irrelevant. In fact, if we answer no, then the theory of
punishment does not even belong in the theory of criminal justice.
Most theories answer yes, that there are at least some criminals or criminal
acts that should be punished. However, this question should not be so easily
dismissed as there are theories which do answer no. Consider, for example,
Pacifism. Also, certain versions ofrestorative justice might optimistically make the
claim that punishment is unnecessary.
5) Whom should we punish
We should punish criminals. Unfortunately, the answer is not that simple. Should
we punish only lawbreakers, or other wrongdoers? Should we punish all criminals?

40. 40
Often, the answers to these questions are interrelated with the reasons for
punishment.
For example, if the reason for punishment is rehabilitation, then we should not
punish criminals who show genuine remorse. In practice, this is difficult to
determine.
The question of whether only lawbreakers can be punished is connected to the
validity of retroactive laws. Whether wrongdoers can and should be punished
under retroactive laws was particularly important around the end of World War II.
Many Nazi war criminals were tried under laws which were not in place at the time
they committed their so-called crimes. Although their actions were wrong, their
punishment brings up important issues. Punishment under retroactive laws can not
possibly accomplish deterrence.
6) How should we punish
Different methods of punishment can be evaluated based on effectiveness, cost
efficiency, and on moral grounds.
There is a principle in certain versions of retributive theory that can be stated as
"an eye for an eye". This principle argues for punishment in kind with the harm
that was caused by the wrongdoer.
Cruel and unusual punishment is outlawed in many legal systems, presumably on
moral grounds.
7) How much should we punish
Deterrence theory argues that the amount of punishment should be the minimum
required to achieve the desired amount of deterrence. Most versions of retributive
justice argue that the amount of punishment should be proportional to the amount
of harm caused. Reform theory argues that the amount of punishment should be
enough to cause reform in the offender.

41. 41
However, some theories would argue that the amount of punishment is not
important at all. For example, if the purpose of punishment is incapacitation, the
fact that a jail sentence is undesirable to the offender is irrelevant.
CHAPTER – V ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM
1 Setting the Stage
2 Public Confidence
3 Dispute Resolution as a Whole
4 Allocation and the Use of Resources
5 A Unified Management/Administrative Model
6 Changing Attitudes, Roles and Responsibilities
7 Management of Cases
8 Additional Areas
9 The Modern Civil Justice System
1) SETTING THE STAGE
No civilized society can remain stable without a mechanism whereby its
members can resolve their disputes peacefully and, where necessary, in a
binding fashion. The alternative to such a mechanism is chaos at best, and
unbridled violence at worst.
Unreasonable delay in the disposition of disputes is, indeed, "the enemy of
justice and peace in the community". It leads inevitably to unreasonable costs. It
breeds inaccessibility. It fosters frustration, and frustrates fairness. The
administration of justice falls into disrepute.

42. 42
a) People become alienated.
Patterns of this nature have been developing in Ontario over the past number of
years. Unacceptable delays and mounting costs, with their attendant implications
for inaccessibility and mistrust of the system, have become endemic.
Backlogs are mushrooming on the crowded urban calendars of Toronto, Ottawa,
Windsor, Brampton, New market and Whit by, to name only the hardest hit
centers. There is more civil litigation. It is more complex. It takes longer to
prepare, to settle and to try. It is fostered by an increasingly "rights-oriented"
and litigious society; enhanced in the prism of mass media coverage; and
nurtured by a continuing onslaught of legislation from all levels of government
giving people more and more opportunities to go to court.
These developments pose serious threats to the civil justice system which,
simply put, is in a crisis situation.
b) The Civil Justice Review
The Civil Justice Review has been established at the joint initiative of the Chief
Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice and the Attorney General for Ontario to
address these problems and to propose "specific and implementable solutions"
for them. Its mandate is,
to develop an overall strategy for the civil justice system in an effort to provide a
speedier, more streamlined and more efficient structure which will maximize the
utilisation of public resources allocated to civil justice.

43. 43
In addressing the concept of a modern civil justice system, and what its features
should be, we determined that we would measure our recommendations against
the following criteria, which we see as the legitimizing principles underlying
such a system.
c) These benchmarks are:
Fairness
Affordability
Accessibility
Timeliness
Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness
Accountability, and
A Streamlined Process and Administration
d) Characteristics of the Modern Civil Justice System
To meet these benchmarks, in our view, a modern civil justice system for
Ontario must have at least the following characteristics:
It must have the confidence of the public, and the public must have a
legitimate and meaningful involvement in the way the system works.
It must be properly and adequately funded and resourced.
It must focus on "dispute resolution" as a whole, and make available to the
public, on an institutional basis, both the traditional court adjudication
processes and the whole panoply of alternative dispute resolution ("ADR";)

44. 44
techniques which enable parties to work out their disputes on their own or
with the assistance of a third party.
Its courts must be presided over by an impartial and completely independent
judiciary, the members of which must be of the highest calibre and character
and who must be representative of the society they are being entrusted to
judge. As the civil justice system evolves, judges, we believe, will be called
upon to bring skills as case managers and general dispute resolvers to their
role as well.
Its administration must likewise be staffed by qualified and trained
personnel at all levels.
It must feature a unified management, administration and budgetary model
for the administration of the justice system, featuring clearly defined lines of
responsibility.
It must be equipped with modern computer and electronic technology to
enable the participants in the system to work effectively as an integrated
whole.
It must operate under the model of cash flow management, a time and event
managing system which facilitates early resolution of cases, reduces delay
and backlogs, and lowers the cost of litigation. Cash flow management shifts
the overall management of cases through the time parameters from the Bar --
where it has traditionally been -- to the judiciary, streamlines the process,
permits the introduction of ADR techniques, and creates an environment
where judges, administrators and quasi-judicial officials can work together
to integrate the various elements of the system into a co-ordinated whole.

45. 45
These themes and concepts are developed in more detail throughout this, our
First Report and will continue to evolve, in consultation with the various
participants in the justice system, as we work toward our Final Report later this
year. What follows in the remainder of this Chapter is a brief commentary on the
more significant features, in order to set the context for our recommendations.
2) PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND PARTICIPATION
In order for the public to have a feeling of confidence in the integrity of their
civil justice system they are entitled to:
Timely and affordable civil justice
Be able to understand the system which provides that justice, at least in its
fundamental elements if not in its procedural complexities and,
Basic, straightforward, information to assist it when it comes into contact
with the system.
As the noted American jurist, Justice Felix Frankfurter, expressed it:
"The Court's authority, consisting of neither the purse nor the sword, rests
ultimately on substantial public confidence in its moral sanction"
Like most other institutions in to-day's society, the Courts are the subject of
increasing scrutiny by the public and the media. This scrutiny makes it ever
more apparent that the Court be worthy of the public confidence which is the
ultimate basis for societies willingness to accept it's decisions.
This is particularly so at a time when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has
placed the Courts at the centre of many controversies which in former days were
the sole preserve of the Legislatures and Parliament. At the same time, new and

46. 46
proliferating legislation in areas such as family law, consumer protection law,
environmental law, class actions and tax and corporate-commercial law -- to
name only a few -- is placing the civil justice system in the public eye on a daily
basis.
As a result, the public is demanding more of a say about what goes on in the
justice system, and the ability to participate in a meaningful way in affecting
what happens. As the public member of the Review put it, there is presently
"no meaningful and substantive role for the citizen in the justice system. Citizens
are less willing today to place blind faith and trust in institutions, in professionals
and in elected officials. They are more demanding of accountability, more insistent
on openness and more determined to be involved in actively shaping our
institutions.
The Civil Justice Review agrees that the public must be given a more
participatory role in the civil justice system, and we have elaborated on this
view in the Chapter called "Changing Attitudes, Roles and Responsibilities.
3) DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE:
The courts and adr, or, the "multi-door" approach
Civil justice is a foundational institution in our society. We believe that the State
has an obligation to make available to its members the means by which their
disputes may be resolved, peacefully, through the medium of independent,
objective and fair third party intervention.
This involves more, in our times, than simply the presence of courts as we have
traditionally known them, albeit, the adjudicative role of an independent
judiciary will remain a central and indispensable aspect of any civil justice

47. 47
system. Experience in our own and most other jurisdictions shows us that the
vast majority of all cases settle before trial. We need to focus our attention on
the process for disposition of this great majority of cases, as well as continuing
to concentrate on those that do go to trial.
In a broader sense, then, "the Court" should become a "dispute resolution
centre" -- a place where people go to have their differences resolved in a fashion
which is most appropriate to their particular situation. This may involve resort to
one or another of the wide panoply of "alternative dispute resolution" ("ADR")
techniques that are available or it may involve resort to the traditional litigation
path towards court adjudication. In either case the State, in our opinion, has an
obligation to ensure that these options are available to the members of the
public. This is what is meant by the "multi-door" concept of dispute resolution.
There are a variety of "doors" through which disputants may go, in order to find
the best method of resolving their differences.
ADR is not a panacea, but among its strengths is the veritable smorgasbord of
techniques which it makes available to enable the parties to create procedures
and solutions that are tailor-made for their circumstances. The public should
have access, within the rubric of its civil justice system, to these alternative
mechanisms for finding a resolution to their own disputes themselves, either on
their own or with the assistance of a third party.
At the same time, it remains essential -- indeed, fundamental -- that the civil
justice system provide an impartial and fair tribunal to determine the parties'
disputes in a binding fashion, when they cannot do so themselves. This tribunal
we know traditionally as a "Court".

48. 48
4) THE ALLOCATION AND USE OF RESOURCES
The modern civil justice system will re-think the way it utilizes its resources. It
will re-allocate existing resources in an effective way and it will invest in new
resources which will enable it to provide a higher quality of justice in a less
costly and more efficient manner in the long term. By "resources" we are
referring to human resources, technology, physical facilities and funding.
a) Human Resources
People perform different functions and roles in the justice system. We
must see that they are able to do so in the most effective manner possible
in order to ensure the highest quality of justice. This means that the civil
justice system must allocate its personnel, in the course of processing its
case load, in a fashion which facilitates the right people performing the
right tasks at the right stage in the proceedings
The people working in the system must be highly qualified, and they must
be provided with the necessary support and training to permit them to
perform their functions and roles properly.
Judges are responsible for adjudicating, for assisting the parties in
settling, and -- in their evolving roles as case managers -- for managing
the flow of cases through the system. Court administrators are responsible
for administration, for managing the operation of the system and for
maintaining the necessary infrastructure to ensure that the system can and
does work.

49. 49
We believe that in between the case processing functions performed by
court administrators, on the one hand, and those performed by judges, on
the other hand, there is a wide range of activities which can be dealt with
more expeditiously and in a more cost-effective manner by non-
administrators and non-judges. These activities do not require a judge for
their performance, but they do require legal training, some case
management and ADR skills, and the ability to exercise discretion and
make decisions of a quasi-judicial nature. We are proposing the creation
of an officer of the Court to be known as a "Judicial Support Officer" to
fill this role.
As will be apparent in the reading of this First Report, we are proposing
that judges, court administrators and judicial support officers can most
effectively carry out their roles in the context of a system of caseflow
management.
We recommend that they do so in "case management teams" consisting of
judges, judicial support officers and case management co-ordinators, and
that the concept of "judicial teams" be extended across the province to
facilitate the implementation of this approach.
In this way, we see judges, quasi-judicial officials and administrators
being able to devote their time and energies in the most effective manner
to their true functions and roles in the system.

50. 50
b) An Independent Judiciary
To ensure the requisite high quality of justice and the fair and impartial
determination of matters coming before the Courts, a strong, and
completely independent judiciary is essential. An independent judiciary is
one of the hallmarks of our free and democratic society. This is not just a
trite platitude: any reforms to the justice system must be measured against
the need to preserve that value.
In addition, those who are appointed to the judiciary must be of the
highest calibre, experienced in the practice of law and in life, and
reflective of the make-up of the society whose people they are being
asked to judge. With case flow management techniques likely to become
more prevalent, judges need to acquire skills in utilizing ADR processes
and in the management of case loads as well.
c) Courthouses and Facilities
A civil justice system requires courthouses and facilities for the trial and
disposition of cases. They are expensive, but they are also an important
symbol that justice is present in the community.
Modern courthouses must be designed to meet the needs of the modern
justice system. They will be centres for dispute resolution in a caseflow
managed system, not simply centres for the disposition of cases by trial.
Accordingly, they must be designed to accomodate the exigencies of such
a system. They will require real courtrooms for the trial of those actions
which must be tried, but they will also require other rooms and facilities
for case management activities, ADR processes and case conferences.

51. 51
Their efficient use of court facilities will depend on their flexibility and
adaptability while equipped with up-to-date multi-media technology
capacity.
d) Technology
Our vision of the civil justice system will require a modern computer and
electronic technology infrastructure. Nothing less will enable the
participants in the system to work effectively as an integrated whole, and
to provide the necessary information and data for the management of the
system.
Automation in Ontario is modest, at best. While there are some
applications in operation in various locations -- particularly in connection
with the three case management pilot projects in Windsor, Sault Ste Marie
and Toronto -- and while the Ministry is currently gathering operating
data from across the Province and inputing it into a computer data base,
these efforts are sporadic, not necessarily compatible, and insufficient.
What is needed is a province-wide network and system that will allow
those who work in the civil justice system to have access to common data
banks that will generate reliable statistical data for analysis and
management purposes and that will eliminate at least part of the
avalanche of paper which is engulfing and paralysing the system.
There are many applications of computer and electronic
technology available on the commercial market and ready for utilisation
to-day, which could make the system function more effectively. Although
they involve initial capital expenditures in terms of hardware, software
and training, these technologies will save money in the long run and are

52. 52
worth the investment. They include -- to name but a few -- applications
which permit:
Electronic filing of documents directly from lawyers offices to the
court data bank;
Imaging, to input documents brought to the courthouse by litigants
acting on their own behalf and who do not have the equipment for
electronic filing;
Automatic payment by debit or credit card;
Video conferencing;
The generation of accurate statistics for purposes of financial and
administrative management;
The scheduling of cases, motions, case conferences and most other
"events" in the system;
The storage of data with much smaller space requirements and in a
manner that makes it accessible simultaneously by anyone requiring
and entitled to access, from anywhere, for any number of purposes
related to the processing of cases.
Apart from the enhanced management information that would be
generated from the investment in these technologies, the amount of
savings in terms of reduced paper flow, reduced storage and the re-
allocation of staff will be very significant.
The Bench, the Bar, Government, and the rule-makers need to embrace
the concept of modernizing the civil justice system so that the
introduction of technology will flow smoothly.

53. 53
e) Proper and Adequate Funding
The modern civil justice system must be properly and adequately funded.
At present, the Ontario Government allocates 0.54% of its total budget to
courts administration. If one takes into account the revenues generated by
civil justice through fees, the annual net allocation to courts
administration is closer to 1/4 of 1%. This has been the pattern for many
years. At the same time, courts administration's share of the budget for the
entire Ministry of the Attorney General has been progressively
decreasing, due in part to the increase in funding for Legal Aid.
What is required, in our opinion, is a complete re-evaluation of the way in
which resources are allocated and protected for Courts Administration. At
the moment, the budget for Courts Administration is buried in the overall
budget of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
In our view, it should be separated and dealt with on its own footing,
particularly in light of our suggestion for a unified management model.
When funding considerations for the administration and infrastructure of
the justice system are mixed in with overall ministry priorities -- many of
which are understandably "policy" or "program" oriented -- they are too
easily "shunted to the rear" in the face of competing demands for
diminishing resources.
The justice system is not a black hole down which governments must
simply pour more money, more judges and more resources. The system
must be accountable and made to operate in a way that demonstrates the
effective use of existing resources already allocated to it. However, the

54. 54
effective utilization of existing resources and the judicious investment of
new and additional resources are both pivotal to a properly functioning
civil justice system.
We have attempted to identify practical efficiencies which can be
introduced within the civil court system and which will lead to savings.
This, coupled with the streamlined and cost-effective nature of the new
system that we are proposing, will lead to an availability of resources
which, we believe, will provide the primary source of the funding needed
to effect the changes we propose.
Technology initiatives are one area where the investment of new funds is
justifiable. That new investment now will pay dividends in terms of
savings and efficiencies which will allow for re-investment to support the
modern civil justice system.

55. 55
5) A UNIFIED MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE MODEL
At the present time, the management and budgetary administration of justice in
Ontario is in bi-furcated hands.
Management and administration are partly the responsibility of the judiciary, but
primarily the responsibility of Courts Administration. Budgeting is solely within
the purview of Courts Administration, and through it, the Executive branch of
government and the Legislature.
Judges are accountable for matters of administration bearing directly on the
exercise of their judicial function. Primarily, this responsibility embraces control
over the lists and the scheduling of cases, and over the assignment of judges and
courtrooms for the hearing of those cases. This responsibility is a necessary
adjunct to the preservation of the institutional independence of the judiciary.
On the other hand, the Ministry of the Attorney General -- the major litigant in
the courts -- is responsible for the budget which enables the judiciary to perform
these "judicial administration" functions. At the same time, the Ministry,
through its Courts Administration branch, is responsible for virtually all other
matters which provide the infrastructure to enable the judiciary to perform their
general judicial functions. The statutory jurisdiction over staff, the
administration budget generally, financing, technology, organization and
physical facilities rests with the Ministry.
The lack of a unified model, with a single line of accountability and clear lines
of authority has led to increasing difficulties, and increasing friction between the
Ministry and the Judiciary. General fiscal restraints, as governments endeavour

56. 56
to spread existing resources over an increasing array of public demands, have
enhanced these difficulties and frictions, and made it urgent that they be
addressed, in the interests of an effectively operating justice system.
Compounding the problems has been a culture which has historically kept
communications between Judiciary and Ministry to a minimum, on the theory
that a judge's task is to adjudicate and an administrator's, to administrate.
We have concluded that the justice system can no longer function effectively in
Ontario unless and until a single authority, with clear lines of responsibility and
accountability, is established to deal with all administrative, financial and
budgetary, and operational matters relating to court administration in the
Province. This is an issue which cuts across the boundaries of the civil justice
system, itself, and affects the system as a whole. Nonetheless, we believe that it
must be dealt with if the civil justice system, in the long run, is to become
effective.
In a Chapter entitled "Creating a Responsible Justice System Structure" we have
recommended that steps be taken immediately to establish a single issue task
force for the purpose of developing an implementable proposal for the creation
of a unified management, administration and budgetary structure for the court
system in Ontario.

57. 57
6) CHANGING ATTITUDES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
One of the most frequently asked questions during our consultation phase --
usually, but not always, by the public -- was,
"Who's in charge here?"
Partly this was a reflection of the tensions and inefficiencies springing from the
lack of an effective management, administration and budgeting system referred
to above. Partly it was a recognition that those who are the participants in the
civil justice system -- judges, administrators and lawyers, in particular -- do not
seem to share a sense of common responsibility for the operation of the system.
We have mentioned the difficulties and tensions between Ministry and
Judiciary. The Bar, too, plays an integral role in the administration of the
system. It represents the clients who use the system in the system. It has
influence through that very representation and through various professional
organizations and its governing body, the Law Society of Upper Canada. Like
its co-participants in the system, the Bar occasionally marches to the tune of its
own drummer (or drummers) as well.
All of this has led to these three constituencies becoming "the three solitudes".
We are happy to be able to report that the walls between the "three solitudes"
appear to be falling. There is a growing recognition that a sense of co-
management of the system and of shared responsibility for its results is essential
to making it operate in a proper fashion, in the interests of the public. The
Chapter entitled "Changing Attitudes, Roles and Responsibilities" elaborates on
this theme.

58. 58
7) MANAGEMENT OF CASES
The Civil Justice Review recommends the establishment of caseflow
management on a Province-wide basis.
The results of the three pilot projects in Windsor, Sault Ste Marie and Toronto
have demonstrated that case management works if it is properly resourced,
effectively planned, and the people working within the system are adequately
trained. It promotes the earlier resolution and disposition of cases, reduces delay
and backlog, ultimately lowers the cost of litigation, and, consequently, adds to
the satisfaction of litigants.
Case flow management is a concept which offers great potential, in our opinion,
for combining and co-coordinating the various disparate elements of the civil
justice system and for integrating them into a more effective whole. The creation
of judicial teams across the Province, and of case management teams involving
judges, judicial support officers and case management co-ordinators is central to
this concept. Circuiting of judges from one Region to another is also an
important feature of this province-wide orchestration of resources and
personnel.
We develop this notion more fully in that portion of the Report dealing with
"Management of Cases".

59. 59
8) ADDITIONAL AREAS
Family matters, small claims and landlord and tenant matters receive separate
attention in the Report. They are the three areas of civil justice that touch people
the most.
Family law was a subject which dominated the public consultation phase of the
Review. Family disputes engender enormous hardship, cost and emotional
strain. We have endeavoured to reflect the concerns expressed and to set out a
proposal which will alleviate at least some of the strains created by the system.
The new process will be resolution focused. Information Services will be made
available to the public to provide explanations about court proceedings -- what
is required, and what may be expected; about the impact of parental separation
and court proceedings on children and the services available to assist in that
regard; and about alternative dispute resolution resources that are available.
Early judicial intervention is proposed for most cases, even before the first
motion or interim relief. The development of standard affidavits setting out the
essential information required for interim relief is encouraged, in an attempt to
minimize what we were frequently told was the forever damaging aspect of
many of the "affidavit wars" between spouses.
With respect to Small Claims Court and Landlord and Tenant matters, we have
put forward some preliminary observations and proposals. Further studies are
being done in these areas in connection with the fundamental issues group of the
Civil Justice Review, however, and we will return to these subjects again in our
Final Report.
In connection with the Rules governing the practice in the Court, we have made
a number of suggestions regarding the need for more responsiveness and de-

60. 60
mystification. In particular, however, we have recommended that the proposal
put forward by the Simplified Civil Rules Subcommittee regarding a procedure
for cases involving money or property valued at under $40,000 be adopted. The
principle recommendations of that proposal are the elimination of oral
examinations for discovery and the elimination of cross-examinations on
affidavits in interlocutory matters, in those types of cases.
9) THE MODERN CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM:
what will it look like in 10 years
What, then, in summary, is the vision for the modern civil justice system of the
next decade and the beginning of the next century? We began this Overview by
noting the guiding principles underlying the deliberations of the Civil Justice
Review:
a) Fairness
b) Affordability
c) Accessibility
d) Timeliness
e) Accountability
f) Efficiency and cost-effectiveness
g) A streamlined process and administration
Based upon our deliberations to date, and measured against the foregoing
benchmarks, we offer the following concept:

61. 61
THE MODERN CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN 10 YEARS: WHAT WILL
IT LOOK LIKE
It will focus on DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE,
Cantering on a "MULTI-DOOR CONCEPT", and
Featuring an INDEPENDENT AND CIRCUITING COURT,
employing CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT as the vehicle for:
screening cases into appropriate streams;
processing those cases in accordance with given time parameters
which will be enforced;
Integrating the various dispute resolution techniques and case
management mechanisms into a co-ordinated whole encouraging early
resolution.
Utilising the right blend of judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative
personnel to do so.
Small Claims and Landlord and Tenant matters will be dealt with separately and
in a more simplified fashion.
Underpinning all of this will be a strategically and properly funded infrastructure
of facilities, computer and electronic technology and properly trained personnel, all
administered through A unified management, administrative and budgetary
structure with clear lines of responsibility and accountability; and finally, The
system will be made as simplified and understandable as reasonably possible, and
will provide methods to incorporate public participation and accountabilitiy in a
legitimate way

62. 62
CHAPTER – IV THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEMS
There are a number of differences between the civil and criminal justice systems
I) Criminal Justice System: In the criminal justice system, the crime victim
reports a crime to law enforcement who may investigate. If an arrest is made
following an investigation, and there is sufficient evidence to go forward, a
prosecutor files charges against defendant and pursues prosecution. The act that
caused the harm is known as a ―crime‖ in the criminal justice system. Today the
criminal justice system perceives crime to be committed against the state. This
perception explains a lot about why the system works as it does. In the criminal
case, the prosecutor is the attorney for all of the people of the state/jurisdiction, and
does not act on behalf of the individual victim. The prosecutor controls all key
decisions of the case, including whether to charge a defendant with a crime and
what crime to charge, and whether to offer or accept a plea deal or go to trial. The
penalties imposed if the defendant is found guilty can include
incarceration/imprisonment, fines and forfeitures, probation, community services,
and sometimes restitution to the individual victim. The burden of proof in criminal
matters is ―beyond a reasonable doubt,‖ which is much more difficult to achieve
than the ―preponderance of evidence‖ standard used in most civil cases.
II) Civil Justice System: Regardless of whether a criminal prosecution was
undertaken, or whether defendant was found not guilty, crime victims may still be
able to seek justice by filing a civil lawsuit against the person or persons the victim
believes caused the victim harm. The civil justice system does not determine an
offender‘s guilt or innocence, but works to determine whether the offender is liable
for the harm caused to the victim. In pursuing the civil lawsuit, the victim, who
usually hires a private attorney, controls all of the key decisions of the case,
including whether to accept a settlement offer or go to trial.

63. 63
The act that caused the harm is known as a ―tort‖ in the civil justice system. In the
civil case, the victim is seeking to be compensated (usually with money) for the
damages that he or she suffered as a result of defendant‘s tort. The amount of
evidence needed to win in most civil cases (or what is known as the burden of
proof) is a ―preponderance of evidence.‖ This burden of proof essentially means
that one side‘s evidence must be more persuasive than the other; this is far lower
than the burden necessary in a criminal case. Statutes, known as ―statutes of
limitation,‖ set time limits on how long you have to file a civil suit following the
harm you suffer. These time limits vary from state to state. If a lawsuit is filed after
expiration of the statute of limitations it will be dismissed as time-barred.
3) Different between criminal and civil justice system
a) How the Criminal Justice System works
The Criminal Justice System is split into 3 national sections: The Ministry of
Justice, which oversees the magistrates' courts, the Crown Court, the Appeals
Courts, the Legal Services Commission and the National Offender Management
Service (including prisons and probation); the Home Office, which oversees the
police and the Attorney General's Office, which oversees the Crown Prosecution
Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions
Office.
The Police investigate cases gathering evidence that they then present to the Crown
Prosecution Service which then decides whether to continue with the case or not. If
a case is continued, it then moves to the various courts in the land be they at
magistrates level or Crown court. In certain cases the Police do have the power to
issue a warning or a caution to an offender and if this happens the offender will not
go before a court.

64. 64
The purpose of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is to deliver justice for all, by
convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while
protecting the innocent. It is responsible for detecting crime and bringing it to
justice; and carrying out the orders of court, such as collecting fines, and
supervising community and custodial punishment.
The CJS measures its performance using 5 categories or ‘indicators’:
• Indicator 1: Bringing offences to justice
• Indicator 2: Increasing public confidence
• Indicator 3: Victim and Witness satisfaction
• Indicator 4: Addressing race dis proportionality
• Indicator 5: Asset recovery
Bringing offences to justice is a key measure of the effectiveness of the CJS.
An offence is said to have been brought to justice when a recorded crime results in
an offender being convicted, cautioned, issued with a penalty notice for disorder
(PND), a warning, or having an offence taken into consideration (TIC).
Indicator 1 supports improved performance in bringing serious violent, sexual and
acquisitive offences to justice. Data has been published on both the volume of such
offences brought to justice, and the volume of recorded crime.
Improving public confidence is important because the CJS relies on public co-
operation and involvement to function effectively. The level of public confidence
in the CJS is measured through a series of questions in the British Crime Survey

65. 65
(BCS). The BCS is a continuous survey of adults aged 16 or over living in private
households in England and Wales.
Two questions serve as key performance measures:
• How confident are you that the CJS as a whole is effective?
• How confident are you that the CJS as a whole is fair?
The level of public confidence for each of these measures is defined as the
proportion who says that they are 'very' or 'fairly' confident.
Indicator No. 3 measures how satisfied victims and witnesses are with the support
they received from the police and other criminal justice agencies. The indicator has
two linked measures:
• Victim satisfaction with the police: this assesses victims' experience of
reporting a crime and the initial police response. It is measured through surveys
with victims carried out by police forces.
• Victim and witness satisfaction with the CJS: this assesses the experience of
victims and witnesses in cases where a charge is brought or which go to court. It is
measured through the Witness and Victim Experience Survey (WAVES).
Indicator No. 4 is measured through the roll-out of the Minimum Data Set (MDS)
programme. Its purpose is to equip LCJBs with a robust ethnicity dataset on
suspects, defendants and offenders experiences, with accompanying guidance on
data use and analysis.