Trial practice is dramatically different in Britain. The lawyers for the two sides, called solicitors, do not go into court. Cou
rtroom work is done by different lawyers, called barristers. The barristers are not permitted to interview any witnesses before trial. They know the substance of what each witness intends to say but do not rehearse questions and answers, as in the United States. Which approach do you consider more effective
The British approach appears to be more effective and even more efficient.
Explanation:
The British approach eliminates the tendency of lawyers to coach the witnesses to produce required answers. This means that using the British approach, witnesses are not properly prepared with correctly rehearsed answers to questions. The discovery of the case by both lawyers happens in the courtroom and not at a pretrial stage. With the British approach, courtroom lawyers are responsible for conducting the opening statement, direct examination of witnesses, closing statement, and cross-examination of witnesses.
There is little publicity compared with Acts of Parliament which may mean people are unaware a ruling exists. Control by Parliament isn't always effective. Few affirmative resolutions exist and MP's are too busy to look over them, and controls are often not used anyway. There is a lack of scrutiny.
