Differences Between Turkish Law and English Law Systems
As you may know, the legal system in England is based on common law principles, whereas the Turkish legal system is based on civil law.Therefore, I think it would be a good idea to start by outlining the differences between the two systems.
One big difference between these two systems can be found in the decision making process. Traditional civil law is a judge- based system. Judges, as direct representatives of the State, conduct the trial and define the scope and the extent of the inquiry; deciding both the fact and the law. Whereas, common law relies on a jury made up of laypersons, who declare a verdict for the case submitted to them.
Another difference is that common law is a judge made law; not codified by the sovereign authority, decision rendered by a judge creates law and is binding on other judges whereas under civil law, in principle the judge applies the law but is not expected to create law. The law is derived from a code issued by the State.
It should be noted, however in “civil law” systems the so-called “judge made law” is not entirely nonexistent. For example, in Turkey the Turkish Court of Cassation (Supreme Court of Appeals), will usually be followed by lower courts.
The role of the judge in civil law systems is much more active and involved than the one which is permitted in common law based systems. This difference is particularly evident in criminal proceedings. Civil law judges actively investigate criminal cases, question witnesses as well as the accused.Whereas common law judges, who are deemed to be neutral and unbiased, are forbidden from engaging in any independent investigation of a case.