Inquisitorial vs Adversarial Systems

	Inquisitorial	Adversarial
Prevalence	Derived form Roman law and practice Inherited by most countries in continental Europe Introduced by European countries into their colonies (for example, France).	Developed over centuries in Britain Introduced into British colonies UK, US, Canada, NZ, India and Australia are examples.
Role of Juge Instructeur	Inquires after the truth and controls judicial investigation Compiles evidence dossier Calles and examines witnesses Determines pre-trial procedure Is active and impartial.	No comparable equivalent in Australia.
Role of Trial Judge	Applies law - almost exclusively from statutory sources Weighs the value of evidence based on its reliability Is the finder of facts and determines remedy/sanction (with other judges and, in very serious cases, a jury).	Ensures a fair trial by upholding strict procedures Upholds rules of evidence Does not ask questions, except to clarify points Is passive and impartial Applies law from statutory and common law sources Is the finder of facts (if no jury) and determines the remedy/sanction.
Role of Prosecution	Respond to directions of the court Make suggestions to the judge instructeur as part of the pre-trial judicial investigation Parquet acts as prosecution.	Control the case Conduct their case unassisted by the court Locate and present evidence Question witnesses Make legal argument and submissions.
Role of Defence Counsel	Not critical Assist the juge instructeur Provides legal counsel to the defence.	Critical to trial procedure Leads the examination, cross-examination and re-examination of witness.
Evidence	Collected by parquet and juge instructeur ‘Proof by any means’ results in relevance being the only rule of evidence Parties may not object to evidence or test evidence in cross-examination Mostly written evidence Witnesses ‘tell their story’ uninterrupted by questions Follow up questions by Trial Judge(s) or Jury to defendant, victim(s) or witnesses permitted in court Character of the defendant allowed as evidence.	Collected by the parties Strict rules of evidence ensure quality of evidence (such as hearsay, opinion and relevance) Judge can only make a ruling on admissibility of evidence if it is challenged by either party High reliance on oral evidence, but importance of written evidence is growing Witnesses answer questions asked by both parties Character of the defendant is not allowed as evidence.
Burden of Proof	No burden of proof on the prosecution Instead, Trial Judge and Jury hears the ‘burden to find the truth.’	Prosecuting party bears the burden of proof Defendant has no burden of proof.
Standard of Proof	Intime conviction - the inner belief and conviction of the Judge Lower standard of proof.	Beyond reasonable doubt Very high in criminal cases.
Separation of Powers	Limited oversight in some instances when the Juge Instructeur is conducting investigations, as there is no need for additional judicial oversight to issue warrants.	Entirely separate judicial and executive roles in all cases Stronger oversight of the investigative process, as police require warrants approved by judicial officers.
Rights of the Accused	Presumption of innocence (improved since 2001) Limited right to remain silent.	Presumption of innocence Robust right to remain silent.