Katika ulimwengu wa sheria uliojaa lugha ya kitaalamu, mianya ya kisheria na "mitandao ya wavulana wa zamani", nafasi zako za kufanikiwa kuwasilisha madai yako mwenyewe ni karibu sifuri. Kwa hiyo, unahitaji wakili wa mahakama au wakili wa kawaida ili akutetee. Lakini, kwa bahati mbaya yako, kupata huduma zake kunagharimu pesa...pesa nyingi sana. Na kadiri unavyokuwa na pesa nyingi za kutumia, ndivyo wakili bora zaidi unavyoweza kumnunua.

With the legal world being so full of technical jargon, loopholes in the law and ‘old boy networks’, your chances of successfully presenting your claims on your own are practically zero. Thus, you need a barrister or solicitor to act on your behalf. But, to your expense, to attain the services of one will cost you money...a lot of money. And the more money you have to spend, the better the lawyer you can buy.

Je, vipi kama huna pesa zaidi za kutumia, na mhalifu aliyeiba nyumba yako ametumia mapato yote ya shughuli zake haramu kujinunulia huduma bora zaidi ambazo taaluma ya sheria inaweza kutoa? Katika tasnia hii utajifunza haraka sana kwamba ushahidi katika kesi si jambo linaloamua hukumu, bali ni mojawapo tu ya zana mbalimbali ambazo wakili hutumia katika kufikia matokeo aliyolipwa ili yapatikane. Inaonekana haki haimo katika orodha yake ya vipaumbele! Hitimisho ni hili: katika harakati za kupata haki zako halali.... pesa ndiyo inayozungumza!

So what if you don’t have more money to spare, and the criminal who robbed your house has used all the earnings from his illicit endeavours to buy the best that the legal profession has to offer? In this industry you will learn very quickly that the evidence in a case is not the deciding factor of the verdict, but it is only one of a variety of the tools that the lawyer makes use of in achieving the outcome he has been paid to produce. It seems that justice does not figure highly on his list of priorities! The bottom line is this. In the quest for getting your legitimate rights....money talks!.

Kuhusu swali la kuamua hukumu katika kesi yako, jambo hili limeachwa kwa wanachama kumi na wawili wa umma waliochaguliwa kwa nasibu - jury. Ushahidi unawasilishwa kwao (kwa ufasaha au la, kutegemea kiasi ambacho wakili wako alilipwa), nao wanauzingatia kulingana na maoni yao wenyewe. Lakini zingatia mambo haya:

With regards to the question of deciding the verdict in your case, this is left up to twelve randomly selected members of the general public - the jury. The evidence is presented to them (eloquently or not depending on how much your lawyer cost), and they weigh it up according to their own opinions. But consider these points:

Ukikutana na watu 12 mitaani, ungewaamini wangapi? Baada ya yote, wajumbe wa jury wenyewe wanaweza kuwa wahalifu, wabaguzi wa rangi, wabaguzi wa kijinsia, waongo, walaghai...

If you came across 12 people in the street, how many of them would you trust? After all, the jury members themselves may be criminals, racist, sexist, liars, cheats...

Huenda jury hawajui chochote kuhusu taratibu za kisheria, sayansi ya uchunguzi wa kimahakama, wala ugumu wa taratibu za polisi. Hata hivyo, wanapaswa kupima ushahidi kwa kutumia misingi hii!

The jury probably know nothing about the details of legal process, the science of forensics or the intricacies of police procedures. Yet they have to judge the evidence according to these bases!.

Kwa ujumla, ukizingatia baadhi ya ukweli huu kuhusu mfumo wa mahakama wa Uingereza, je, inashangaza kwamba huna imani nao?

All in all, given some of these facts about the British judicial system, is it any surprise that you don’t have confidence in it?