The plaintiff - their legal representative outlines the case for the prosecution. It's then up to the defence barrister to answer the allegations on behalf of the defendant.
Your question is too broad to be answered as written, as the nature of the defense depends upon the cause of action asserted by the Plaintiff.
The defense of consent can provide justification of a tort if the defendant can show that the plaintiff agreed to the conduct that caused the harm. This defense asserts that the plaintiff willingly accepted the risk associated with the defendant's actions.
Plaintiff is the party who starts a lawsuit.
The preferred defense in a negligence suit is to argue that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, did not breach that duty, or that the plaintiff's own actions contributed to their injury (contributory negligence or assumption of risk). Additionally, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff's injury was not directly caused by their actions.
It generally means the access by a plaintiff to a lawyer who directs his defense.
A denial does just that it denies the Plaintiff's allegations and the burden of proof is still on the Plaintiff to prove the prima facie case.An affirmative defense does not deny the allegations but asserts a defense that would negate the legal effect of the Plaintiff's cause of action. The burden of proof in an affirmative defense is on the Defendant.An example would be a breach of contract case. The Plaintiff claims that he had a contract with the Defendant, and Defendant did not perform the contract. A denial would say "We never had a contract" and the Plaintiff would have to prove the existence of a contract. An affirmative defense would say "Yes, we had a contract, but that was 20 years ago thus the action is barred by the 10 year statute of limitations." Then the burden of proof is on the Defendant to show that the contract falls outside of the statute of limitations period.
The sides in a civil trial are the same as a criminal trial. There is a plaintiff and a defendant. In a criminal trial the plaintiff is usually the jurisdictioni charging the defendant.
The plaintiff is not required to provide witnesses to a case, per se; although they must prove their case (It is very hard to do without at least one witness, normally the plaintiff alone). In either case however the defense is not limited in its ability to call any witness to the case, as long as the plaintiff is notified of the witness who will appear and the witness will provide material testimony about the case.Additional: The defense cannot elicit brand-new testimony from the plaintiffs witness, however the witness is subject to cross-examination by the defense, who will try to either draw out testimony favorable to his client, or to impeach the testimony that the witness gave on direct examination.
The noun plaintiff is a common noun; lower case unless it starts a sentence. The noun Plaintiff is a proper noun when used to name a specific plaintiff; for example, Plaintiff: Malcolm M. Malcolm or Malcolm M. Malcolm, Plaintiff.
Consent is a defense to the tort of battery if the plaintiff willingly and knowingly agreed to the harmful or offensive contact that resulted in the battery. If valid consent was given, it can serve as a defense against a claim of battery.
the plaintiff
I believe that any lawyer would consider this to be a conflict of interest, and not allowed.