Provisions of Criminal Justice Act 2003 has considerably improved laws in relation to hearsay evidence in criminal trials in England and Wales. This Act has wide measures introduced to modernize key areas of the criminal justice system. It amends the law in many other areas such as police powers, sentencing, bail, bad character evidence etc. Criminal Justice Act 2003 gives permission to allow a case to be tried by a judge without a jury present in circumstances where there may be a danger of jury tampering.
In the case of Teper v R per Lord Normand: ‘[Hearsay evidence] is not the best evidence and it is not delivered on oath. The truthfulness and accuracy of the person whose words are spoken to by another witness cannot be tested by cross-examination, and the light which his demeanor would throw on
In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if: any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible, any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible, all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be
Witnesses can be prevented from attending court due to other factors which may intervene such as, illness, holiday, and work, move of house, relatives and commitments with family. Regrettably, police no longer have the duty to care for witnesses. Therefore, leaving contact with the witness day before the trial is not a good
This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision .
The use of eyewitness statements and testimony’s can be a great source of information, but can also lead to wrongful convictions. Due to eyewitness testimony, innocent people are convicted of crimes they have not committed. This is why the wording of a question is important to consider when interviewing witnesses. Due to the fact that eyewitness testimony can be the most concrete evidence in an investigation, witnesses may feel they are helping an officer by giving them as much information as possible, therefore they may tell them information that is not entirely true, just to please them. This is why there are advantages and disadvantages to using open and close ended questioning at different durations of an interview. The way you word a question may impact the memory of a witness, this is because a person cannot completely memorize the exact occurrences of an event.
Therefore this paper has confirmed that eye witness testimonies should not be utilised within the criminal justice system.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
The status of the criminal justice system in Europe during the 1700s was the product of long tradition of aristocracy. An aristocracy government is one in which land is owned by particular families and is passed down through the generations of a family line. The monarch of the region grants titles and powers to the privileged classes, who in return keep order within their land and swear loyalty to the monarch. Property and power in an aristocracy were the privileges of birth alone and being merit was simply irrelevant. Their lives circled around maintaining, while attempting to expand, their wealth and power. Historically, as a higher class among others, aristocrats were known to be negligent towards the poor. To where they were prone to appoint
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
The criminal justice system has come under fire over the last couple years over the handling of many incidents involving police officers use of force and the lack of punishments being handed down to them. Police officers play a vital role in ensuring law and order is maintained in the communities they are protecting and serving against any crimes and to help during natural disasters. This paper will explore how the criminal justice system is viewed in the eyes of a police officers and the thoughts on everything that has been ongoing.
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
... this sense is not admissible, and therefore his testimony is objectifiable in this sense did not comply with the federal rule of evidence 704.
Every country has a form of criminal justice system. This system consists in a different series of organizations that work together to defend, sentence and punish those that did not follow the law or have been involved in any type of crime. In most of the countries, the system is similar be-cause is based on law enforcement agencies, attorney generals, judges, courts of law and prisons. All of these organizations work together to contribute towards the better enhancement of the working cooperation within the criminal justice system. However, these procedures won’t al-ways be fully applicable in certain countries.
The United States of America’s criminal justice system is defined as the system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of a criminal offense. And while nothing is perfect, the goal of this system is to make sure every citizen is treated fairly and that justice is served. Over the years the United States has made a lot of changes to the way their law enforcement handles certain situations and offenses. These changes have come from learning experiences. For example the Miranda vs. Arizona case taught us that every person, guilty or not, needs to be read their rights before taken into custody because it is fair. A more modern topic that has constantly been changing the way our government and criminal justice system operates, is terrorism. Terrorism over the past two decades or so, has had a huge influence on the way our law enforcement goes about protecting us from threats. There have been new laws and acts created, new task forces