The fundamental aim of the Criminal Procedure Code is to ensure a fair trial, where the rights of all parties are not compromised nor are any decisions unfavourably skewed. A trial primarily aimed at ascertaining truth has to be fair to all parties, this includes the accused and the victim. A “Minister of Justice” is there in court to see that justice is done to both parties whilst presenting the case “in the best light” for the community and presenting the evidence in a way that is persuasive and appealing. Under the Australian law, each individual has human rights and is entitled to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. A fair trial includes allowing appropriate opportunities by law to prove their innocence.
The aim of the prosecutor
…show more content…
With this, the testifiers are able to testify the truth freely, ensuring the validity of a “fair” trial. The victims and witnesses are not the only parties that may benefit from the services of Police prosecutors. Simultaneously, Police Prosecutors also have the responsibility of ensuring the police are abiding the law and treating the accuse fairly during interrogation. It is because Police Prosecutors also have the responsibility of advising correct policy and procedures and guarantee the system is also fair towards the accused whilst they still have not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable …show more content…
In 1983, the office of the director of public prosecution, also known as DPP, was established. The DPP is a “high-volume criminal law practice” that relies on barristers that focus on criminal law “The overarching role of a public prosecutor is to prosecute serious crimes that are committed inside Victoria; murders, cases that involves serious drug trafficking, cases involving sex offenses, fraud and cases of assault.” Moreover, their role in these robust cases are to be able to carry them out in a fair and ethical way and see that justice is done to all parties in the process. The concept behind this establishment was to move the decision making of criminal prosecution from the government to an independent party. One of the most challenging roles of the DPP is to decide whether a case can continuing moving forward or it will be stopped, settled or downgraded. It is important for the community to recognize that the DPP is an independent establishment as it brings great confidence to the criminal justice system and that it is fair towards to both the government and the
Victims’ rights include being informed of the investigation, being able to make a witness statement, being informed of the charges laid against the accused and being treated with sympathy and compassion. (Charter of Victim’s Rights NT 2016). The rights of the accused are outlined Article 14 of ‘The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’, which states that the accused must; be informed of the charges laid against them, have adequate time to prepare and choose a counsel of their choosing, be tried without undue delay, be tried in the presence of the court, not be compelled to testify against themselves or confess guilt and be compensated by the court if wrongfully convicted (ICCPR 1966). These rights must be upheld to ensure equality before the law, however, when neglected justice is denied as illustrated in the Mallard and Raggett
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
Just and equitable legal outcomes to evaluate the case include of many expectations that may be met, the outcome of the case was discovered by fair trial which includes correct punishment theories and procedures, Justice Roslyn Atkinson met these through the trial also making it equitable because the punishment theories were applied to the offender Brett Peter Cowan. Punishment options and procedures in Queensland met the current needs of the society throughout this
in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that
Legal system is a comprehensive term that is used to confirm the existence of the law; it also explains the law-making process and how this is enforced on everyone. The Australian legal system regulates all level of governments, organisations, and all people whether they are Australian born or have migrated here, and they must obey Australia’s regulations. The legal system here was developed from the United Kingdom’s legal system, as Australia was a colony of the British. At a glance, the British government granted restricted rights to their colonies, including Australia to set local government system. This was intended to developed laws in local area, also to deal with specific situation at that time. As a result, the legal system in each of the colonies started to develop separately. According to Carvan J (2010) the Australian law is adopted from several sources, including the rules of equity, parliamentary laws, delegated legislations, judge-made laws, and international laws. (Austrlian Legal System, 2007)
In theory all jury systems (which have existed for almost 800 years) are fair and just.
In chapter twelve, Joel Samaha has discussed various court proceedings before trial. Samaha begins to elaborate the importance of the prosecutor’s decision in determining whether there is a concrete case against the alleged defendant. The evidence at hand ultimately dictates the proceeding of events in court. Along with evidence, the lack of resources might add to the difficulty in charging an individual. Prosecutors are faced with an overload of cases; ultimately prosecutors are forced to prioritize their cases based on their resources and the evidence provided. The cases that are regarded are then considered for suspect detainment. Probable cause to detain suspects is undergone so that the case may proceed to trial. Typically an arraignment
R N Howie and P A Johnson, Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW, 2011-2102, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths 2012) 17769-1774
The issue I have decided to analyse is that concerning the implications of bail and remand. Bail is an option a court must confront when temporarily releasing an accused individual until their expected appearance at an appointed time, before the determination of innocence or guilt is concluded. Several guarantees that secure the person’s appearance at an appointed time include a guarantor, bond assurance paid by a surety holder, summons or court attendance notice. Remand is the refusal of bail, when the accused is to be detained prior to there trial, remanded into custody until the hearing is resumed, or the trial commenced. Remand is given if there is an increased probability of the defendant committing another offense, failing to turn up to court, intimidating someone or obstructing the course of justice. The matter addressing bail and remand is that specific criteria for courts when determining bail is that they need to meet consistently high requirements and is extremely convoluted. The past decade has revealed that the proportion of remandees in NSW has doubled to the aggregated prisoner population, while prisoners remanded into custody has tripled.
When it comes to the vague ethics rules and finding effective ways to create a set of clearer ethical standards, legalistic approaches should be taken. Legalistic approaches began in the early 1900’s with the first set of ethics rules, the 1908 Canons. The 1908 Canons stated the primary duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice. The 1908 Canons method failed due to the lack of clarity concerning in depth what the prosecutor’s ethical obligations were. Another remarkable approach was the 1969 Model Rules, which made operational progress in defining the ethical duties of a prosecutor which established a set of rules, but yet and still failed to address the ethical obligation of seeking justice (American Bar Association, 1983). If these legalistic approaches continue to advance and make suitable amount of progress, less failure will occur and eventually the goal of seeking justice will be reached. An effective method to alleviate the vast discretionary authority with little to no transparency would be to use a prosecutor’s handbook (Joy 2006). Both the American Bar Association Prosecution Function Standards and National District Attorneys Association make recommendation of using a prosecutor’s handbook. These written standards bring more awareness to prosecutors allowing them to know the limits of their authority and provides guidance on how to properly exercise discretion. At the last point, inadequate remedies which create incentive to prosecutorial misconduct rather than deter it can be solved by reformation (Caldwell, 2013). Within trial courts, when a prosecutor has fraudulently obtained evidence, the trial court does have to option to exclude the evidence in which has been affected by misconduct. This approach typically does not result in anything further than a verbal reprimand. There are no types of
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
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.
The Australian Legal System has a rich and detailed history dating from 1066. Law is made in Parliament. We have four sources of law and three courts with different jurisdictions that interpret the law when giving out justice. Important doctrines act as the corner-stones of our legal system. There is a procedure in the courts for making appeals. Separation of powers exists between officials in the courts, the parliament and the Executive. Everyone in Australia is treated equally under the Rule of Law, no matter their office or status. The Law is always changing as society changes, but it can never be perfect and cannot please everyone.
Prosecutors have to do the most important part of their job is to make sure they investigate the criminal acts that have happened. They must have evidence of that person to make sure that person go to jail. When someone admitted they are guilty, they state that willingly that is a guilty plea they chose to take, giving the
The success of the criminal investigation process in achieving justice can be seen through its efforts to balance the rights of the victim, offender and the community, this is evident in the areas of police powers and discretion. Police powers constitute police officers to exercise special powers such as search and seizure and the use of reasonable force. These powers are outlined in the Law Enforcement (Powers