Colonial mixed courts were promoted by Western powers as an alternative to consular jurisdiction in non-Western countries. Unlike ordinary local courts, mixed courts were composed partly or entirely of foreign judges and applied Western or Western-inspired procedural and substantial rules. Unlike consular courts, they were considered an integral part of the legal order of the host polity, which could be a fully sovereign state, a protectorate, a mandate, or a condominium. After identifying the core features of colonial mixed courts and explaining their rationale, this chapter examines judicial activism in adjudicating the compensation mechanisms provided to foreigners by some mixed courts. The chapter shows how, despite the demise of mixed courts in the course of decolonisation, their pioneering experience in the field of transnational dispute resolution and the protection of individual rights contributed to the emergence of international judges as guarantors of individual rights in the twentieth century.

Many countries around the globe rely on ordinary citizens, untrained in the law, to decide the guilt or innocence of their fellow citizens. Some countries use all-layperson juries, while others use mixed tribunals or mixed courts in which professional judges and lay citizens work together to decide a case. Still other countries use lay magistrates or lay judges working alone or on panels. This book provides a view of the different forms of lay participation and the ways in which they are evolving. It offers a comprehensive picture of how some countries have made recent and remarkable advances toward lay decision-making, while others have a long-standing form of lay participation that is well accepted in that country. Still other countries have faced challenges with lay participation and have opted for limiting the scope of lay legal decision-making or even abolishing it. The organization of this book illustrates that lay participation in a country is not fixed in stone; lay participation is being advanced, reinforced, or replaced in countries around the world. These shifting responses to lay participation suggest the prime importance of stepping back and taking a global perspective.

This chapter provides historical and contemporary perspectives on two long-standing systems of trial by jury in France and in Belgium. It begins with a brief history of the French criminal jury and describes its recent reforms, including a significant pilot program that extended lay participation. This chapter then turns to the history of the Belgian criminal jury, recent reforms which almost abolished it, and countervailing forces to resurrect and strengthen the jury. It explores how political and economic struggles in both countries have influenced the ebb and flow of lay citizen participation, combined with underlying tension between professional judges and lay citizen judges. The chapter concludes with observations about the future for lay participation in these two countries.

Lay magistrates are involved in most of the criminal cases in England and Wales. They typically sit in panels, but in minor cases they sit as single decision-makers. In both situations, they are assisted by a legal adviser. Lay magistrates also hear appeals as part of a mixed court presided over by a professional judge. Lay magistrates are more diverse in personal characteristics than professional judges, but the level of commitment required results in an overrepresentation of older, middle-class people. The lay magistrate is defined by law, professional work patterns, budget constraints, and the traditional legal culture. In addition, the architecture of the courtroom, as well as the use of video links, often impedes interaction between lay magistrates and defendants. These constraints at times threaten justice and procedural fairness. The number of lay magistrates has been declining for years. To dispose of cases more quickly, professional judges have taken a slice of the caseload. A different work pattern can be found at the youth court where magistrates engage actively with the defendant and are not confined to a narrow decision-making function.