 |
|
Subject: Председательствующий делает замечание слушателю Из протокола судебного заседания:Председательствующий делает замечание слушателю, и предупреждает, что за повторное нарушение поведения в зале судебного заседания слушатель будет удален из зала судебного заседания. ... Кто такой слушатель? Attendee? The Presiding Judge admonishes [the attendee] and warns him that he will be removed from the courtroom if he misbehaves again [in the event of his repeated misconduct] during the court hearing (session)...? |
|
link 30.12.2021 19:52 |
|
Слушатели - это граждане, присутствующие в открытом судебном заседании по своей инициативе. Нашел англоязычный документ, который регулирует поведение слушателей в суде и в котором говорится: "Any member of the public may attend open court hearings...". А сам документ называется "Guide to attending court" (https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/attending-court/guide-to-attending-court). Поскольку используется глагол attend, то, скорее всего, вы правы - attendee. |
|
Неа. Spectator |
| Соглядатай?.. |
|
Зритель. Most courtrooms have a spectator area in the back, often separated by a "bar" or partition from the rest of the courtroom. Members of the public, including those who come to court to support a family member or friend, sit in this area. Spectators may quietly enter, be seated and leave the courtroom at any time during open sessions of the court-martial, but they will not be permitted to distract, disturb, or interrupt court proceedings by their conduct. |
| Amor71 +1: Человек из публики, допускаемой в залы суда на открытые заседания. |
| Обычно не только на открытие, но и на весь судебный процесс от начала до конца. |
| Вот есть хорошее русское слово "зевака"... Для обозначения праздношатающихся... Не для официального докУмента, ясен пень... |
| Но не в данном случае. Там представители прессы, общественности, заинтересованные лица, друзья, родственники. Это не заваки, хотя и такие есть, которым не лень целыми днями сидеть в судах. |
| Не открытИЕ, а открытЫЕ. Сравните: открытые и закрытые заседания суда. И не только пресса и родственники: заранее известно количество мест, каждый "зевака" может прийти, если место свободное есть. |
| Sorry |
|
link 31.12.2021 17:20 |
|
I don't see anything wrong with 'the attendee'. I wouldn't use 'spectator' or 'spectator area' myself, as most people associate that with sporting events, eg 'a football spectator'. If it's a relative of the defendant/victim or just a member of the general public, they sit in the 'public gallery'. I would also use 'court hearing' and either 'if he misbehaves again' or better, 'if he interrupts the proceedings again'. Example: https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/disturbance-public-gallery-brings-temporary-12288792 (first few paragraphs). The crime you commit if you misbehave in court is 'contempt of court' and, strictly speaking, a person committing it is a 'contemnor' -- but that's a very legalistic word which most people, inc the media, wouldn't use. |
|
link 31.12.2021 19:58 |
| johnstephenson, I would prefer to avoid 'if he interrupts the proceedings again'. Those "нарушения" include not only interruptions but anything that violates Article 257 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, including anything that shows disrespect for the court. E.g. Article 257 states that tha proper form of addressing the judge is "Your Honour". If during the hearing somebody repeatedly calls the judge by name, refusing to use the proper wording, the judge may apply Art. 258 of the Code and remove that person from the room, but I would hardly call that person's behaviour "interrupting the proceedings". |
|
link 31.12.2021 22:23 |
|
Maksym Kozub: In that case, 'misbehaves' or 'disrespects the court' would probably be better, as you suggest (although this is still covered by 'contempt of court' in English). It all depends on what exactly the "нарушение поведения" consists of. 'interrupting the proceedings' means making a noise, protesting, using a mobile phone, taking photographs or making audio recordings of the court's proceedings (both of which are banned in most UK courts but permitted in US states), or doing anything else that distracts the court/court officials/lawyers/witnesses/jurors etc so that the trial has to be stopped, even temporarily. |
|
link 1.01.2022 11:02 |
| johnstephenson, I understand what "interrupting the proceedings" means, and I completely agree with what you said: it all depends on what exactly the "нарушение поведения" consists of. My previous comment, was precisely about the meaning of "нарушение": I have seen quite a number of judgments, legal publications, etc., and it is generally understood that such "нарушение поведения" is anything that goes against the rules established by Article 257, "Регламент судебного заседания". (Well, to be more precise, that one is for criminal proceedings; for civil proceedings, there is a similar Article 158, "Порядок в судебном заседании", in the Code of Civil Procedure.) You can find that article e.g. on https://www.zakonrf.info/upk/257/; it includes different things, including "Действия лиц, присутствующих в зале судебного заседания и осуществляющих разрешенные судом фотографирование, видеозапись и (или) киносъемку, трансляцию по радио, телевидению или в информационно-телекоммуникационной сети "Интернет", не должны нарушать установленный порядок судебного заседания. Эти действия могут быть ограничены судом во времени и должны осуществляться на указанных судом местах в зале судебного заседания и с учетом мнения лиц, участвующих в деле". So, another example of misbehaviour would be somebody secretly broadcasting the hearing on the Internet after the judge requested that the broadcasting should stop. It does not interrupt the proceedings, but if the judge sees it, they would punish such attendee. |
|
link 1.01.2022 15:03 |
|
Maksym Kozub: Interesting. So the (УПК?) allows these activities in certain cases. Traditionally in the UK, in case you didn't know it, the only court in which (limited) photography/audio recordings are allowed, is the recently-established Supreme Court. In all other courts, the media have to use so-called 'court artists'/'court illustrators'. They sit in the courtroom and memorise the faces of the main characters involved in high-profile trials, then go outside (eg to a pub) and draw what each person looked like before they forget. The drawings then appear in TV news bulletins and in newspapers. Usually they're not very clear as they're drawn in a hurry. For a few examples, if interested, search for "crown court" "drawing" OR "drawings" OR "sketch" OR "sketches" [including the quotes] in Google Images. The thinking is that if you allow cameras/microphones into courts, it will turn trials into entertainment, as has happened in the US. However, all of this is likely to change as the govt is planning to allow static cameras into more courts on an experimental basis. There's more information about court illustrators -- again, only if interested -- at https://www.itsnicethat.com/features/courtroom-illustration-060420# |
|
This may be of interest: ATTENDEES in the courtroom (i.e. parties, spectators, news media) Southern Judicial Circuit of Georgia (USA) |
|
Amor 71 +1 During a jury trial, there should be no contact with the jury. It is the jury's duty to listen to all the evidence and the argument of attorneys and it is vital for any litigants or spectators to refrain from any reactions to testimony or evidence. Should this occur, a spectator may be asked to leave the courtroom and, in some cases, held in contempt of court for their interference. Spectators should have no conversations with jurors at any point during the trial. The jurors will be asked to report to the court any contact that is made. This could be a most serious offense and summarily punished by fine or imprisonment. Even after the trial, no one should approach the jurors about their decisions. The First Judicial Circuit of the State of Arkansas |
|
link 2.01.2022 21:22 |
|
johnstephenson, thank you for the link. I knew that the UK has different laws on those things, but I did not go deep into details. Yes, Russian procedural legislation allows those activities. You may be surprised to know that my country, Ukraine, has even more liberal regulations on that subject than Russia has. While the relevant provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure are generally similar to those in the Russian CCrimP, the Code of Civil Procedure expressly states the following (since early 2018, when significant amendments were made; before that, the Ukrainian CCivP provisions were similar to those in the CCrimP and to the relevant Russian legislation): "Persons present in the courtroom, [as well as] those representing mass media, may take photos, as well as record video and audio using portable video and audio equipment without obtaining a separate permission from the court, provided, however, that the restrictions established by this Code are met. ...Broadcasting of the court hearing requires a permission by the court. If all parties participate in the court hearing in the videoconferencing mode, it is mandatory to broadcast the court hearing on the Internet. ...Taking photos and videorecording in the courtroom, as well as broadcasting of the court hearing, shall be carried out without creating obstacles for conducting the hearing or the parties' use of their procedural rights". |
|
link 2.01.2022 21:32 |
| Tamerlane, you made a good point: parties also _attend_ the hearing, while "слушатель" is a member of the general public, not a party to the hearing. |
| Можно подумать, у сидящих в зале на лбу написано, они "party to the hearing" или "member of the general public". И разве первые не входят во вторую группу? |
|
link 2.01.2022 23:11 |
|
Tamerlane 17:21 & 17:31: OK, that's fair enough, although both examples are from the US. If you search through the UK's Contempt of Court Act 1981 (the latest version of the Act), it doesn't seem to give us the mot juste, instead referring eg to: " any person who— (a) wilfully insults the justice or justices, any witness before or officer of the court or any solicitor or counsel having business in the court, during his or their sitting or attendance in court or in going to or returning from the court; or (b) wilfully interrupts the proceedings of the court or otherwise misbehaves in court. " So that doesn't help us much. Also, if you go to the UK Ministry of Justice website and search within it for 'spectator(s)', you'll find that nearly every hit refers to people attending: sports/entertainment/other events; as well as The Spectator magazine. However, if you search the web more widely you'll find a few references by UK judges etc, discussing whether or not "spectators"/"observers"/"onlookers" at a trial (eg, members of the public or newspaper reporters) can in some cases also be classified as "participants" in it for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act. So if 'spectator' is good enough for them, it's good enough for me. :-( In fact it's probably better than 'attendee', as an 'attendee' could in theory be anyone who's in the courtroom -- a spectator, the accused, a witness, a juror, a lawyer, a court official, or even the judge. |
|
link 2.01.2022 23:33 |
| Sorry, Tamerlane, I've just realised that my last sentence says the same as your first para at 17:21. |
|
link 3.01.2022 0:24 |
|
OFF: Maksym Kozub: That's interesting. Here in the UK we're obviously more reluctant than other countries to allow the media into courtrooms. The Court of Appeal experimented with fixed cameras a few years ago, but insisted on having control of them, and the footage was never released to the media. I've read a few articles here by senior judges, some of whom are very opposed to letting in cameras/microphones. One wrote: "If you allow them in, you could have people in the public gallery deliberately disrupting the proceedings, just in order to get onto the telly". An amusing story: I was once sat in the public gallery of a courtroom at Liverpool Crown Court and a young man sat near me stood up and took a photograph of the accused. The judge said: "You! Stop that immediately! Don't you know that's illegal?" The man said he did know, but that the accused was "a mate of mine". The judge said: "And you're an idiot. Usher, remove this man from the court and take him down to the cells, I'll deal with him later." I later read in the Liverpool Echo that the judge had given him 3 months and his camera had been confiscated -- whilst his friend (the accused) was found not guilty and released! |
| I've always suspected Brits do not know English. |
|
link 3.01.2022 0:39 |
| Ha, ha! |
| This is for you, Mr. John. |
| This, obviously, is about the way they pronounce things. Although I've come to like American pronunciation better over time, I still absolutely adore the way this great language is spoken by Patrick Stewart, an Englishman blessed with one of the most beautiful English speaking voices in history. |
|
link 3.01.2022 18:44 |
|
Amor 71: Very good! This is how wars start. I hope the UN is better than this! I didn't understand all of the Russian, but then I didn't understand much of the English either (apart from the 'American')! The one on the left has almost perfected the Indian accent, and the one on the right sounds like Boris Johnson, except that he (the comedian) talks more sense! Tamerlane: Yes, Stewart is a very clear speaker. Laurence Olivier was also a very clear speaker. He narrated the 1970s TV documentary series 'The World at War', about World War II. Unfortunately, though, he nearly always mispronounced foreign (inc Russian) names. Another very clear speaker is South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Two days ago he delivered the eulogy at the funeral of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the anti-apartheid and anti-corruption campaigner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X93c6HQTZCs |
| You need to be logged in to post in the forum |