The courtroom observation report focuses on perceptions of a civil law court located in the new justice building in Manchester. The entrance hall of the building was impressive. The security guards directed me to the court. The first thing I thought before entering the courtroom was that it wasn't crowded with judges and policemen, as well as criminals. The design of the court was simple and there was no police presence compared to my expectations. The process started around 9:20 am and lasted about 3 hours. It was a claim by one party and a counterclaim by the other. The complaint was lodged as the accused neglected to follow traffic rules while driving causing the accident. The counterclaim was made at the court's request for injuries to his leg and lower back as the court in question the accident took place. In any case, as I found in court, the two cases were heard simultaneously by the judge with the ultimate goal of saving time in mind. The normal approach is usually to solve a case and a time and counter case are also analyzed independently. However, to avoid wasting time on two related issues, the judge hears the two cases at the same time. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay After entering the courtroom, I sat in the back, where the audience sits, facing the judge's seat on the other side of the chamber. In front of me, on the left side, was the appellant with his lawyer while in front of them sat the defender sitting on a separate level. On the other side was the defendant with his lawyer in front of him. A few minutes before 9, most of the people outside the building went inside to take their seats. The judge took the stand at around 9.30 am and started the proceedings by calling the appellant to the witness stand. The appellant stated that he stopped the car at the left end of the road and went to the nearby shops. After going to the store, she returned to her car and attempted to get back to the right side of the road. Nonetheless, he said that when he attempted to go to the right side of the road he did not see the defendant's car passing in time, which led to the collision. After the appellant's presentation to the court, the two defenders asked him questions relating to the episode that caused the accident. The accused was subsequently called to the witness stand. He clarified that he was crossing the road when the offender's car came to the side of the road without traffic signals, which resulted in the accident. He further revealed that he tried to escape the accused's car, but it was already too late. At that point, the appellant's lawyer contested that he had illegally passed by the Pelican a few meters from the scene of the incident. The accused denied it. Furthermore, another imperative discussion was on the articulation of the witness where he stated that he broke his leg and that the accident also caused damage to his back. The accused's father-in-law was also called to the witness stand as he was the co-pilot at the time of the event. The judge and the offended party attempted to see whether the litigant and his father-in-law had argued until the end of time about what had happened or simply about the evidence. He turned back even though he looked confused. Towards the end of the trial the judge explained all the facts and evidence presented during the.