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
Throughout the 40 day trial procedure Dietrich was forced to represent himself given he had already exhausted all possibilities of retaining any form of legal representation. After having applied countlessly, failing then reapplying for assistance from the supreme court of Victoria his request was once again denied and was obligated to continue the process
In Dusky v. United States (1959), two standards are created for determining whether or not a person is competent to stand trial. These standards do not go without flaws and are questioned by psychologists and psychological research. Milton R. Dusky had a demanding life throughout his childhood and adult years. He became an alcoholic because of the challenges he confronted daily. He had little money, could barely keep a job, got divorced, and could not take care of his son.
In the case of Tara Brown’s murder, various groups of individuals are affected. As well as maintaining principles of fair punishment and deterrence, the criminal justice system has to consider perceptions of the victim’s family (secondary victim), the community’s demand for crime prevention, and the offender’s rights to a fair court hearing. The most likely outcome is imprisonment for Lionel John Patea due to committing an indictable offence. It is important to note that if this was only a case of domestic abuse without murder, it would utilise more time, effort and expenses to come to a resolution. This is due to the different circumstances and degree of abuse that the judge has to assess.
HER HONOUR: "Simon Gittany is charged with the murder of Lisa Cecilia Harnum on the 30th of July 2011. He has pleaded not guilty to that charge. On his application, I ordered that he be tried by a judge alone. The trial proceeded before me over four weeks from 21 October 2013. This judgment records my verdict and my reasons for reaching that verdict."
Mohammad Haneef & Erosion of Civil Liberties Weland La ‘Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties.’ Discuss this statement in light of the Haneef Case and one other issue (such as the right to silence, privacy, etc.), commenting on the extent to which the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety. In correlation with the Haneef Case, Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as demonstrated by NSW’s introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Both instances use the situation, where improper and circumstantial evidence is accepted, opportunistically to demolish the reputation of the opposing party. This allows for previously repressed conflict to develop into larger scale matters that dictate life and death. The exploitation of the unreliability of evidence and lack of knowledge for the underlying individual circumstances is why these conflicts
(Yencken, D. 2008) Australia’s legal and political system meets these criteria. It is yet important to recognise that the rule of law significantly depends on legal precedent for its active upkeep. No government official may violate these limits. No ruler, minister, or political party can tell a judge how to decide a case.
Introduction In the matter of R v Francis , the defendant (Glen Reginald Francis) was being tried for the attempted murder of Timothy Udris. On 8th June 2014, Glenn Francis (‘Francis’) attacked Timothy Udris (‘Udris’), who was hit at least two times with a claw hammer to the skull. The Crown submitted that Francis had attempted to murder Udris, under s306 Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld).
Disputes are unavoidable. Their impact can be out of all proportion to their substance. At best they distract; at worst, they destroy relationships and businesses. Litigation is the most recognized form of dispute resolution throughout the world. Attempts have been made and continue to be made, to speed up the litigation process and to reduce the cost but litigation remains an expensive and time-consuming way to resolve disputes.
Both parties are given the chance to argue their case. 4. Parties have to right to be represented by a lawyer. This was supported by Barn (1985).
Before the new Arbitration & Conciliation Act came into existence arbitration was contained in three enactments. The new act consolidated and amended the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and also defines the law relating to conciliation. The Arbitration & Conciliation Bill, 1996, was passed by both houses of Parliament and received the President’s assent on 16th August, 1996 and became The ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996. 1.2 Arbitration-Pros and Cons The purpose of arbitration is to reduce costs and delays associated with litigation.
1. Circumstantial evidence, also known as ‘indirect’ evidence, is often dismissed as being weaker than direct evidence. By its very definition, circumstantial evidence seems to be less credible because it requires an extra step of inference to determine a conclusion that might not even be the truth. Evidence is powerful when it successfully establishes facts and fulfills the burden of proof. Powerful evidence is credible, and paints a clearer picture of the truth, which allows courts to make more informed decisions in the interests of justice.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
CHAPTER ONE AN INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER Controversies are as old as humankind. Consequently, dispute resolutions are only slightly more recent in the history of human controversies, whether the parties directly reached these dispute resolutions by themselves using peaceful negotiation, violence, or assistance from a third party. There is no need for further comments on the history of dispute resolutions, which is an interesting topic for anthropologists and historians to study, but not suited for the purpose of this dissertation.