英国人权学论文代写：公开法庭程序
法官们一边默默地听着检察官的整个案子，一边谈论一些据说是协助作出决定的文献。法官做出了一个决定，认为把资金管理成本纳入赔偿范围是不恰当的，这与“合并原则”不一致，简单的说就是把情况或合同还原为前者位置。整个过程需要时间，因为这个过程比我在地方法院看到的要长得多。也许是因为地方法院的判决不是最终的，所有的原告和被告都有比现在更高的法院上诉的机会。然而，高院的情况却不尽相同，因为这可能是最后的决定，即使有希望被重罚的罪过，也不得不屈服于法官的决定。但有些作者认为，国家的立法可以通过普通的多数表决来否决法院对权利的正确解释，这可能会导致司法制度的薄弱。
英国人权学论文代写：公开法庭程序
在法庭上的其他事情是技术工具，特别是手机。人们有手机，但要么关掉，要么保持沉默。提到这一点，人们注意到法院面临的是处理这些新技术的问题，以及如何在社交媒体及其后果的帮助下公开法庭程序。信息对所有案件和摘要的可及性是惊人的，并且对所有人开放。这是决定法院与公众分享信息的自由的一个关键方面。但是，除与案件有关的人外，不得进入家庭案件和儿童案件。
英国人权学论文代写：公开法庭程序
The judges kept silently listening to the whole case from the prosecutors and discussed among themselves while referring to certain literature, which was supposedly for assisting in making a decision. The judge made a decision that it was improper to include fund management cost to be included as compensation in the case, and it was inconsistent with the ‘restiutio in intergrum’ principle, which simple means that the situation or a contract was restored to the former position. The whole process took time as the process was much lengthier than what I saw in the Local court. It is perhaps because, the Local court judgements are not final and that all plaintiff and defendants have another chance of hope by appealing in a court higher than the present. The situation in the High court is however different, because it may be the final decision, and even the guilty though being hopeful of being saved of a grave punishment, will have to succumb to the decision made by the judges. However, some authors feel that national legislations can actually override the court’s correct interpretation of rights by having an ordinary majority vote, which may cause a weak judicial system.
英国人权学论文代写：公开法庭程序
The other things in the court were technological instrument, especially the mobile phones. People had mobile phones but were either switched off or silent. Referring to this observation, it is noticed that the courts are facing a question of dealing with these new technologies and how the court proceedings can be made public with the help of social media and its subsequent effects. The accessibility of information to all cases and summaries was astonishing, and was available and open to all. This was a critical aspect which could determine the freedom of the courts to share information with the public. However, the entry in family matter cases and children’s matter were not allowed except the people having relevance to the case.
