Advantages Of The West Australian Adversarial System

There is indeed a crisis to a certain extent in the use of forensic science in the prosecution of individuals in criminal cases; this is because some judges and juries over value the objectivity of forensics, without evaluating the timeline and crime scene as a whole. This was particularly evident in the 1995 case of Mallard. In this case Andrew Mallard was convicted for the 1994 murder of Mrs Laurence, a jewellery shop owner in Perth. Mallard is now considered innocent of the murder; however this innocence was only obtained through two appeals. In the second appeal of Mallards, forensic evidence was put forward, but it is alleged that it had not been properly disclosed to the legal team of Mr Mallard when the trial commenced. Thus one of the

Justice is the concept of moral rightness that is based on equality, access and fairness. This means that the law is applied equally, understood by all people and does not have a particularly harsh effect on an individual. In Australia, the adversary system is used as a means to achieve justice by proving the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the crime. The criminal trial process has many features which aim to fulfill the requirements of achieving justice. These elements, though considers equality, fairness and access, are flawed in practice. Flaws such as the handling of evidence, jurors not understanding instructions, inadequate funds for legal

It is widely recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of significant reform, if the nation’s present and future need for fair justice is to be met.

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

This may also be due to the credibility of scientific evidence, for example the scientific evidence of DNA is hard to disprove in court as members of society are made to believe through the influence of social media that if there is DNA evidence present the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. While DNA has helped solve many cases and been used in court during the criminal trial process to prove and disprove an accused innocence it also adds to the flaws in the efficiency of the trial process. There are cases in which the accused had been wrongfully convicted due to DNA results, such as the case of Farah Jama where a man was wrongfully convicted of rape through the evidence of DNA alone. Farah Jama was convicted of raping a woman in a nightclub in 2006, in 2008 before a jury he was sentenced to six years jail by Judge Paul Lacava. Farah was found guilty of rape solely on the basis of DNA, adding to the suggestion that the jury is persuaded by the DNA evidence. In early 2009 a solicitor took on Jamas case, asking for the retesting of the key DNA sample, the scientist who retested the sample expressed doubts to its reliability. Jamas was later acquitted and it is highly likely that he was convicted of a crime that never took place. This was a miscarriage of justice which raises the question whether or not scientific

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

Having made visits to the Supreme, District and the Local Courts, I was able to obtain a better understanding of the Australian adversarial system. This report will attempt to analyze the distinctions between the different types of courts through primary observations. The report will also assess the models of justice in operation, the triviality of the lower courts compared to the higher courts and assess court procedure in each court.

    A review of false convictions that involved forensic science and can help identify critical lessons for forensic scientists as they perform testing, interpret results, render conclusions, and testify in court from the national institute of justice.

In the inquisitorial system the judge is the central evidence gatherer and directs the trial to get to the truth, he then questions the witness and examines evidence of a case in private and comes to a decision. The judge plays the detective law and fact finder role that looks into facts and evidence. No burden of proof is necessary and no jury is used in the inquisitorial system instead a panel of judges to decide on a case. This is better than having a jury because they are qualified and experienced in this field. The jury may not have legal background knowledge and wouldn’t be able to make the right decision as the other panel of judges would. The Inquisitorial system is much faster, more efficient and also a less expensive process than the adversarial system.

The basic division in the structure of criminal courts is between the lower criminal courts – the local courts, Children’s court and Coroner’s court – and the higher criminal courts – the District Court and the Supreme Court. In observing proceedings at the Local, District and Supreme Courts over a period of three days a number of aspects of the criminal justice system were made apparent. The administration, processes and practices of the criminal trial are extremely varied dependent upon the level of criminal court being observed. The distinctions between the workings of the two courts revealed a number of the differences between summary proceedings and trial upon indictment. The cases observed served to

The objective of an adversarial system and an inquisitorial system is similar, but the path to justice is very different. The terms adversarial and inquisitorial are used to describe types of justice systems in which represent common law and civil law respectively. The adversarial system is a legal system where two parties’ positions are represented before an unbiased judge or a jury who attempt to determine the truth behind the case. In an inquisitorial system, a judge contributes to the preparation of evidence along with how the different parties are to present their case at the trial. The judge plays the role of finding the truth and all the evidence that either proves the innocence or guilt of the accused. The adversarial system is clearly the more impartial and accurate way to determine the truth within a case.

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

In today's Australia the price of handling a substantial litigation matter is unobtainable for the average Australian, justice does indeed go to the highest bidder and “Unless you are a millionaire or a pauper, the cost of going to court to protect your rights is beyond you.” George Brandis, shadow attorney-general. To say that justice is earned and reserved for the population of Australia is a myth and it is true that legal aid community centres are grossly underfunded and explicitly for those in dire need of legal aid and do not represent the common Australian, there is no universal legal safety-net unlike the education and health systems.

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead the discussion to the conclusion that the above statement is not sustainable