DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEARING AND TRIAL

In law, a trial and a hearing are different. A hearing is a procedure before a court or any decision-making body or any higher authority. Trials happen when the parties in a dispute come together to present their evidentiary information before an authority or a court.

When comparing a hearing and a trial, the former is shorter and also less formal. In the course of a legal action, hearings are normally conducted in an oral way so as to see if the issue could be resolved without any trial. Hearings are also processes to see and to decide on the discreet issues like the admissibility of the evidence to determine the proceedings of the trial. In hearings, testimony and limited evidence are presented.

When a trial is held before a group of members, it is called a jury trial. If the trial is before a judge, then it can be called a bench trial. The bench trials are often resolved in a rapid manner. Then there are criminal trials that deal with all types of crimes. A civil trial deals with non-criminal disputes.

Administrative hearings are also not considered to be trials even though they have similar features as that of a trial proceeding.


Though hearings before a court or any authority have many similar features as that of trial proceedings, they are not termed as trials. It should also be noted that appellate proceedings are also not termed to be trials as these are restricted to the review of the evidence before a court.
Hearings also come in many types. Some of the hearings involve civil issues and others involve criminal issues.

Summary:

1.A hearing is a procedure before a court or any decision-making body or any higher authority. A trial happens when the parties in a dispute come together to present their evidentiary information before an authority or a court.

2.In the course of a legal action, hearings are normally conducted in an oral way so as to see if the issue could be resolved without any trial. Hearings are also processes to see and to decide on the discreet issues like the admissibility of the evidence to determine the proceedings of the trial.

3.When comparing a hearing and a trial, the former is shorter and also less formal.

4.When a trial is held before a group of members, it is called a jury trial. If the trial is before a judge, then it can be called a bench trial.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY

Distinction between the offence of abetment and criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court has held that the distinction between the offence of abetment under the second clause of section 107 and that of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A is that, in the former offence a mere combination of persons or agreement between them is not enough.An act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for; in the latter offencethe mere agreement is enough if the agreement is to commit an offence.Section 120-A may be distinguished from Section 34 of I.P.C. The points of distinction between the two are as follows: —Section 34 (Common intention):1. Section 34 applies when a criminal act is done in furtherance of the common intention of all the offenders. 2. Section 34 is a procedural rule; it lays down a principle to determine the criminal liability of persons more than one in the commission of a crime but does not create a subs
Read more

Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Explained

Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence: This section protects the person making statement during police investigation under duress or inducement. The Code allows police officer to record statements of witnesses with a view to facilitating investigation of the offence. But if such statements are made under duress or inducement, they are rendered inadmissible in evidence because they cannot be said to be free and fair statements made voluntarily. As rightly pointed out by the Apex Court, the object of Section 162 is “to protect the accused both against overzealous police officers and untruthful witnesses.” It cannot be used for corroborating a witness but it can certainly be used to contradict him by a police statement. Where a person appears as a defence witness in a trial, his former statement made before the police cannot be used for contradicting him because it would be against the accepted norms of justice to allow a witness to be contradicted by a s
Read more