The fact that England and Wales are historically under the common law systems. it would not be surprising if there is still a great extent of adversarialism in said country. To understand more about the concept and the possibility of assessing to which the system still exists, let us try to go back in history. Wikipedia said, Some writers trace the process to the medieval mode of trial by combat, in which some litigants, notably women, were allowed a champion to represent them. Certainly, the use of the jury in the common law system seems to have fostered the adversarial system, and there are many today who believe that it remains the best way of providing for the determination of a disputed issue. On the other hand, the new British Civil Justice reforms initiated by Lord Woolf (the Civil Procedure Rules or CPR)3 are prefaced with a case management system controlled by the judge rather than by the lawyers representing the different parties. similar case management systems are coming into use in the United States.4The above would indicate the, there are already reforms initiated in the areas of civil systems, where more control is now given to the judge instead of the lawyers. To afford a deeper understanding of the extent of modifications on adversarial, let us first analyze first and discuss the basic features of the adversarial system.One basic feature of the adversarial system is that the accused is not compelled to give evidence. As an accused5 has the right to invoke his right against self incrimination6 hence he cannot be compelled to provide any evidence in a criminal adversarial proceeding7 and the consequence of this is that he may refuse to answer the questions of the prosecutor or judge unless said accused waives his right. However, his decision to testify will subject him to cross-examination 8 and for which he could be found guilty of perjury 9 for lying under oath.