UK cannot boast a single conviction for FGM, compared
to the 100 plus recorded in .
Why is this? Part of the answer might lie in the nature of the two legal
systems – the inquisitorial in France France,
and the adversarial in . Britain
In short, the aim of the French system is to establish the truth. By contrast, the truth is not relevant to the outcome of a British criminal trial, (or a criminal trial in any country where the adversarial system is practised.)
The French system is based on a presumption of guilt. The process is investigative and works backwards from that premise. In the adversarial system, all investigation has taken place before the case has come to trial, after which, two counsels engage in a contest played according to certain rules.
The onus is on the prosecuting counsel to prove the guilt of the defendant, ”beyond reasonable doubt”, and the defendant is presumed innocent. This is one of the cherished features of our system, frequently commended as a liberty that we should be proud of. But investigations into miscarriages of justice tend to begin from the premise that the guilty verdict was correct and work backwards, finding the essential flaw as it proceeds, i. e. follow the French model.
I suspect that the adversary system is as likely to let the guilty go free as it is to condemn the innocent. The daughter of a well known Scottish barrister once told me of the occasion when her Father was greeted with the words,”You almost had me believing I didnae do it”, by a notorious Glaswegian hoodlum that he had just successfully defended!