Australia, a common law country, uses the adversary system which relies on a two-sided structure of opponent sides each presenting their own position, with an impartial judge or jury hearing each side and determining the truth in the case This system aims to accomplish procedural fairness, while also balancing the right of the individual with the rights and interests of society as a whole. . The burden of proof id placed on the prosecution and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This essay will examine the advantages and disadvantages of the adversary system and whether the use of this system achieves just and fair outcomes. Throughout this argument, reference to the R v Gittany 2014 case will be made, emphasising how the adversary system
…show more content…
Australian courts have ruled that a trial will rarely be fair for an accused without adequate legal representation and due to this give parties to gather and present evidence and make the decision of having legal representation. Although legal representation is an option, in most cases it costs a significant amount of money and many people cannot afford such large costs. Since the adversary system is flexible and allows for parties to have control, alternatives are taken into consideration of these issues. This is shown in the case R v Gittany 2014 as Simon Gittany granted a judge-alone trial in order to save money on legal representation. By choosing this option of a judge alone trail he the case became case two weeks shorter, saving time. Another feature in the adversary system that contributes to its effectiveness are the strict rules of evidence and procedure. As both parties are subject to the same strict rules during the trail, it ensures equality and fairness before the law. The Sydney morning herald, “Simon Gittany guilty of murdering fiancée Lisa Harnum,”comments on the evidence of Gittany’s abusive and controlling behaviour. This evidence found the sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Lisa