Rape Trial Heard In The District Trial Of Mr Bowden

Introduction [- Questions 1, 2, 3, 4.]

The group observed a rape trial heard in the Criminal Jurisdiction of the District Court of SA prosecuted by the State Director of Public Prosecutions against Mr Bowden, the defendant, before His Honour, Judge McEwen, in courtroom 5. The part of the trial which was observed was the voire dire, closing statements of both counsel and the judge summarising the facts and addressing the jury as to the relevant legal principles and their duties.

5. Legal and factual issues

In 2015, the complainant, a 17-year-old female, visited Bowden’s house for the first time as she was a close friends with his partner. Both the complainant and the accused went into the garage to smoke cigarettes and cannabis, where Bowden

It is his responsibility to determine the admissible facts and the applicable law. Further, it is the Judge's duty to remain impartial despite public perception and media reports. In the Judge's summing up, an ethical point raised was that the accused should be presumed innocent until the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. The Judge stressed that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution and that the Defendant did not have to prove anything. In addition, his Honour pointed out that the jury could not find the defendant guilty of rape solely on the basis that he had used cannabis and the inconsistencies within his statement after the initial police questioning. However, it was to be seen as potential evidence of unconscionable guilt. The jury was further instructed that the accused could not be judged unfairly due to his low standard of education and that he could not be considered less favourably as a

It follows an established hierarchy according to jurisdiction. The higher courts decisions are binding on lower courts and on the courts in the same court hierarchy. There are also rigid court processes in place whereby the parties’ counsel give opening statements, examine their own witnesses, conduct cross-examination and the counsel give closing addresses. The high degree of the court’s formality conveys the serious nature of the proceedings and promotes the dignity of the court process. The Judge presides on a bench with the highest elevation. A Coat of Arms is placed behind to symbolise that the judge is an instrument of the State. All members of the court must bow when entering or leaving the courtroom and when the judge enters and leaves. The legal representatives of each party are placed on equal footing that face the Judge allowing a direct communication between the lawyers and the judge. Further, being placed in equal elevation, symbolises equality of representation. Counsel wore formal black robes but no wigs to distinguish themselves from other participants, uniformed sheriff’s officers were present to symbolise the serious nature of the proceedings and the Judge wore black robes, a purple sash and a