Adversarial Litigation System of the Commonwealth

In the 21st Century many things have been called into question. Among those things is the adversarial system that Australia’s Rule of Law system follows. The argument stands that the adversarial system is too aggressive in its approach to the legal system. Would Australia benefit more from the adversarial system changing into the inquisitorial system or would it be more beneficial to create a hybrid of the two. This essay will aim to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both the current system of adversarial and the more European system of inquisitorial. Highlighting why it is important to begin moving away from a traditional adversarial system drawing evidence from the Family court of Australia, the Netherlands and Nigeria’s current

The courts play a huge role in the criminal justice system. The dual court system of the United States (U.S.) was established through the U.S. constitution. The court systems have a multiple purposes and elements of court. Federal and state court system is what makes up the dual court system of the U.S. Today the U.S. court system is what it is today because of previous legal codes, common law, and the precedent it played in the past. Making the U.S. court system a vital role in the criminal justice system..

The law relating spousal compellability. In 1940 Wigmore observed spousal compellability has a long history wrapped ‘in tantalizing obscurity’. Whereas Lord Wilberforce also states that to allowed a spouse to give evidence would rise to discord and perjury of the law which would be to ordinary people repugnant . These are two distinct opinions highlighting the fact that spousal compellability is a highly debatable area of law. Under section 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 spouses are non-compellable unless the offence is one which is specified. However this spousal compellability has sparked intense criticisms and renders the justification questionable. By utilising relevant source, academic opinions and case authority, I will critically evaluate and consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and include whether or not I think it is justifiable.

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

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

The adversarial nature of the Australian court system is fundamentally implemented to ensure a fair and impartial trial for members of the public, yet this is not always the case. Access to justice, and the courts themselves, are often perceived quite variably depending on an individual’s experience with such institutions. In particular, it is often the disadvantaged in our society, such as those from low socio-economic backgrounds, youth and Indigenous Australians, who are the most neglected and disheartened by fair access to the court systems. However, this is not to say that the system specifically works in favor of educated, white individuals. The systematic approach to court processes, consisting of the apparent impartiality of judges and trials by jury, often impede the natural course of justice and do not allow for a fair and unbiased trial.

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

One case which shows there should be a right to anonymity for suspects and defendants is ‘R v James and Norley’ , it shows that there is a vast stigma towards suspects and defendants accused of a sexual offence compared to another type of crime. After Ebrahimi in this case had been investigated by police and gone back home, he received threats, bullying and victimisation from his neighbours. Even though the police did not find him guilty of any sexual offence the neighbours still felt very strong about the allegation, and so Ebrahimi did not feel safe in his home. The victimisation of Ebrahimi resulted in his murder by his neighbours and burning of his body, as they strongly believed that he was a paedophile and the label of him being a paedophile didn’t leave Ebrahimi when the police released him without a charge. This shows the extent of danger that a suspect can be under when others believe that they are guilty of a sexual offence, and why anonymity should be granted to suspects and defendants as it would protect them from stigma and possible harm from others who like in this case took matters into

Is our NSW court system effective? It is if you have money. Is it something that we can just adhere to with out ever allowing it to adapt and evolve to meet societies needs? Absolutely not. Just like humanity, the NSW court system contains protruding faults that are made apparent with further scrutiny. The court system is something that requires our constant attention and support to improve and advance. In order for the court system to attain eligibility it relies heavily on 4 fundamental components; affordability, simplicity, fairness and accessibility. For countless Australians our legal system is lacking on all these fronts.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

I. Can our client satisfy the first requirement for a malicious prosecution suit that requires that the termination of the earlier suit be in the plaintiff’s favor when in our client’s case their termination was due to a voluntary dismissal by the initial plaintiff who changed her mind about her claim?

Therefore, this essay will firstly critically evaluate how court reporting restrictions in the family court, under the anonymity provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the contempt at court provisions in section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 along with other court reporting restrictions in the family courts, are problematic for family proceedings when compared to being protective. Furthermore, this essay will then analyse how the protective scope of court reporting restrictions in the family court system has been reduced as a result of the continued problems that court reporting restrictions cause, but in a need to make the court more transparent has made the court reporting restrictions even more

In the 6th century, the trial or ordeal began, later in the 11th century the common law developed in England and the Normans evaded England. The common law system was brought over to Australia in the year 1788. The courts of Equity were developed due to the common law courts are ‘unjust’. These courts introduced fairness into our common law system.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.