Переведите предложения на английский язык.

1. Правосудие по уголовному делу в Российской Федерации осуществляется только судом. (УПК. Статья 8)
2. Никто не может быть признан виновным в совершении преступления и подвергнут уголовному наказанию иначе как по приговору суда. (УПК. Статья 8)
3. Обвиняемый считается невиновным, пока его виновность в совершении преступления не будет доказана. (УПК. Статья 14)
4. Подозреваемый или обвиняемый не обязан доказывать свою невиновность. Бремя доказывания обвинения и опровержения доводов, приводимых в защиту подозреваемого или обвиняемого, лежит на стороне обвинения. (УПК. Статья 14)
5. Все сомнения в виновности обвиняемого толкуются в пользу обвиняемого. (УПК. Статья 14)
6. Обвинительный приговор не может быть основан на предположениях. (УПК. Статья 14)
7. Уголовное судопроизводство осуществляется на основе состязательности сторон. (УПК. Статья 15)
8. Функции обвинения, защиты и разрешения уголовного дела отделены друг от друга и не могут быть возложены на один и тот же орган или одно и тоже должностное лицо(УПК. Статья 15).
9. Суд не является органом уголовного преследования, не выступает на стороне обвинения или стороне защиты. (УПК. Статья 15)
10. Стороны обвинения и защиты равноправны перед судом. (УПК. Статья 15)

13. Блиц-опрос. Группа назначает ведущего, который называет одну из цифр от 1 до 28 и выбирает студента, отвечающего, к какой стадии судебного процесса относится ситуация, обозначенная этой цифрой. За каждый правильный ответ назначается один балл, за неправильный – снимается один балл. Побеждают набравшие большее число баллов. (Число вопросов, заданных группе, должно нацело делиться на число студентов).

1. “Members of the jury, this defendant is charged with three offences: theft, assault, and possessing an offensive weapon, that is a large lock-knife. The prosecution says that on Saturday 31 December 2005 he entered a pet shop where he appeared to be acting suspiciously.”
2. “It will be for you to decide what actually happened in this case. You must consider each of these charges separately. In each case before you can convict, the prosecution must make you sure that the defendant is guilty. I will now call the evidence before you.”
3. “Jurors who are chosen to serve on a jury will take the oath on the Bible, Muslims on the Koran. If the jurors have no religious beliefs, they will be asked to affirm and permitted to make a solemn promise to give a true verdict according to the evidence.”
4. At trial, the judge ruled the jury that an alibi notice was necessary in respect of the possible evidence.
5. W and F were tried on four joint counts of handling stolen goods. The jury retired at 1.00 p.m. on Thursday and was given the majority direction at 3.35 p.m. At 4.36 p.m., they were called back and asked whether they had reached any verdicts. They returned guilty verdicts on counts 1-3 in respect of F. When asked if they were likely to reach verdicts on the remaining matters, the forewoman said “we are one away from having a majority”. The jury was released for the night.
6. An application by the defence that the video-recorded interview be excluded, on the ground that the substance of her evidence was hearsay because it came from what she had been told by her mother, had been refused by the judge.
7. Thomas has been charged with murder. He is pleading “not guilty” to the charge.
8. The judge in his summing-up failed to give the jury the proper warning that, even if they concluded that the alibi was false, that did not of itself entitle them to convict the defendant. The prosecution must still make them sure of his guilt.
9. 14 months’ imprisonment for aggravated vehicle taking six months consecutive for dangerous driving and six months consecutive to both terms for driving with excess alcohol (total 26 months); disqualified from driving for two years.
10. At the conclusion of the evidence, there was a submission of no case to answer in respect of the counts of murder and attempted murder.
11. The judge directed the jury on recent possession, and added: “I told you that you are entitled to draw certain inferences from recent possession but it is for you to (say) how recent is recent. What might be recent possession, for example, for a painting worth a couple of million pounds would, you might think, be very different from what would be recent possession of a packet of cigarettes. It depends upon the property, does it not, and it depends upon the circumstances.”
12. Four years’ imprisonment, disqualified from driving for five years and ordered to take an appropriate driving test.
13. The defendant pleaded guilty to two offences of unlawful wounding, two of taking a vehicle without consent, one of burglary and one of false imprisonment.

– So, Mr. Smith, you took Ms. Jones to a movie that night, didn't you?

– Objection, Your Honour, counsel is leading the witness.

– I'll rephrase the question. Mr. Smith, where did you go that night? Who did you go with?

– I know Harry well enough to know that two beers usually make him drunk, so I’m sure he was drunk that night too.

– Your Honour, the witness has no firsthand knowledge of Harry’s condition that night.

1. The party calling the witness is not allowed to ask questions that are designed to lead the witness into giving a particular answer. Another important rule is the rule against allowing hearsay evidence. Witnesses may talk about what they saw and heard, but not about what other people may have told them.
2. The judge tells the jury what the law is. He gives them "legal directions". He must also gives directions as to what the prosecution must prove in order to make them sure.
3. The judge reminds the jury of the important parts of evidence. He does his best to give a fair and balanced summary of the facts.
4. Jurors who are guarded by the court ushers, who must ensure that no one interrupts or interferes with them while they are deliberating.
5. The judge takes into consideration all the circumstances of the offence itself. He considers the effect that the offence has had on the victim of the crime. The judge is given information about the defendant's own personal circumstances.
6. The defence argued that the effect of the Criminal Law Act 1967, s. 6(2) was that on an indictment for murder a person might be found not guilt of murder but guilty either of manslaughter or of causing grievious bodily harm with intent.
7. At the trial counsel for the company submitted that there was no case to answer the judge rejected the submissions, whereupon the company changed its plea to guilty.
8. At the first trial a Mrs. Freestone gave evidence implicating Miss C. She had been in a cell with her and Miss C had told her that the deceased “had got what he deserved’’ and that her boyfriend and friend “had gone and waited for him and they had sorted him out”.
9. Colk pleaded guilty, on the basis that he had not personally used any violence to the victim. The other defendants pleaded not guilty.
10. The trial judge directed the jury to put the question of diminished responsibility out of their minds since it had not been put forward as a defence and there was no evidence to substantiate it.
11. At the start of the trial, defence counsel submitted that evidence as to those conversations should be excluded.
12. At the end of the defence case prosecuting counsel applied for and obtained leave to adduce evidence in rebuttal relating to entries on all the till rolls.
13. She said that on the day of the search, she had not heard C shout anything and was unaware of the presence of the drugs in the flat. Defence counsel posed the question for the jury—if a tenant is visiting infrequently, does she have control simply through knowledge?
14. At the defendant’s trial for burglary, the prosecutions sought to put before the jury notes of two interviews which the police claimed had been made contemporaneously but neither of which had been signed by the defendant. The defendant’s case was that there had only been one interview, at which no notes had been taken, and that the allegedly contemporaneous notes had in fact been fabricated.
15. The judge submitted that neither the seriousness of the offence nor the danger to the public justified a sentence as long as 14 years. The judge came to the conclusion that the sentence was somewhat too long. A distinction should be made between false imprisonment for a period of three-a-half hours, and other offences of even greater seriousness. Some credit was due for the guilty plea. Keeping in mind the element of public protection, the judge would substitute a sentence of 12 years for the sentence of 14 years.