 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Civil procedure is the body oflaw that sets out the rules and regulations along with some standards thatcourts follow when adjudicating civillawsuits (as opposed to procedures incriminal law matters). These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind ofservice of process (if any) is required; the types ofpleadings or statements of case,motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner ofdepositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct oftrials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various availableremedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.
In most cases, criminal prosecutions are pursued by thestate in order to punish offenders, although some systems, such as inEnglish andFrench law, allow citizens to bring aprivate prosecution. Conversely,civil actions are initiated by privateindividuals, companies or organizations, for their own benefit. Government agencies may also be a party to civil actions. Civil and criminal cases are usually heard in different courts.
In jurisdictions based on English common-law systems, the party bringing a criminal charge (in most cases, the state) is called the "prosecution", but the party bringing most forms of civil action is the "plaintiff" or "claimant". In both kinds of action the other party is known as the "defendant". A criminal case against a person called Ms. Sanchez would be described as "The People v. (= "versus", "against" or "and") Sanchez", "The State (or Commonwealth) v. Sanchez" or "[The name of the State] v. Sanchez" in the United States and "R. (Rex,Latin for "King" but spoken as "The Crown") v. Sanchez" in England and Wales, amongst otherCommonwealth realms. But a civil action between Ms. Sanchez and a Mr. Smith would be "Sanchez v. Smith" if it were started by Sanchez, and "Smith v. Sanchez" if it were started by Mr. Smith (though the order of parties' names can change if the case is appealed).[1]
Most countries make a clear distinction between civil and criminal procedure. For example, acriminal court may force a convicted defendant to pay a fine as punishment for their crime, and thelegal costs of both theprosecution and defence. But the victim of thecrime generally pursues their claim forcompensation in a civil, not a criminal, action.[2] In France and England, however, a victim of a crime may incidentally be awarded compensation by a criminal courtjudge.
Evidence from acriminal trial is generally admissible as evidence in a civil action about the same matter. For example, the victim of a road accident does not directly benefit if the driver who injured them is found guilty of the crime of careless driving. The victim still has to prove his case in a civil action, unless the doctrine ofcollateral estoppel applies, as it does in most American jurisdictions.[2] The victim may be able to prove their civil case even when the driver is found not guilty in the criminal trial, because the standard to determine guilt is higher than the standard to determine fault. However, if a driver is found by a civil jury not to have been negligent, a prosecutor may be estopped from charging them criminally.
If the plaintiff has shown that the defendant is liable, the main remedy in a civil court is the amount of money, or "damages", which the defendant should pay to the plaintiff.[2] Alternative civil remedies include restitution or transfer of property, or an injunction to restrain or order certain actions.
Thestandards of proof are higher in a criminal case than in a civil one, since the state does not wish to risk punishing an innocent person. InEnglish law the prosecution must prove the guilt of a criminal "beyond reasonable doubt"; but the plaintiff in a civil action is required to prove his case "on the balance of probabilities".[2] Thus, in a criminal case a crime cannot be proven if the person or persons judging it doubt the guilt of the suspect and have a reason (not just a feeling or intuition) for this doubt. But in a civil case, the court will weigh all the evidence and decide what is most probable.
Civil procedure is traditionally divided intoinquisitorial andadversarial.[3]
