An Examination Of The Qld Courts

The Australian justice system implements the adversarial system in which opposing parties present their case before an unbiased decision maker, to ensure procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice are upheld.The system has been structured this way to ensure justice is served for the victim, offender and the broader community. The nature of justice is that it is equal to all, fair from bias and is accessible. In the case on R v Rolfe and R v Weston (2017) the two offenders; Timothy Rolfe and John Weston, members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club were sentenced at the NSW Supreme Court on a joint criminal enterprise for the murder of 29-year-old Laurence Starling. The killing was motivated by revenge for an unpaid extortion debt of $200,000 between the deceased’s business partner Mr Fields and a high-ranking member of the ‘’Rebels’’ who sent his subordinates to seize Mr Field’s assets as compensation. The complex circumstances of the crime were problematic for the justice system because particular methods had to be implemented in the process of achieving justice however the justice system was relatively effective in reaching a just outcome for majority of the stakeholders due to its resource efficiency, responsiveness, accessibility, standards of fairness, protection of individual rights and meeting society’s needs.

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

During her study of the Scottish criminal justice system, McBarnet was able to construct an idea of a “two-tier” justice system. In her work, McBarnet reported on the major disparity of proceedings and procedures between the higher and lower courts. Upon my observation of proceedings in the lower and higher courts, I believe this ‘gap’ is prominent in the NSW criminal adversarial system.

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

The courts are able to change the law through precedent but are limited by only having influence on the specific cases that are taken to the courts. Parliament is the main branch of government that both makes and reforms the law through the passage of bills. The parliament is able to set up parliamentary committees and law reform commissions, but has no say in the running of these commissions. The NSW Law Reform Commission prepares reports to review the issues identified in the reference, and make recommendations to Government for legislative reform. They do this through a preliminary submission, if required, to give stakeholders an initial opportunity to address the terms of reference and highlight the key issues. This will be followed

The Eugene McGee case highlights many strengths and weaknesses throughout the Australian legal system. Weaknesses such as the investigation procedure being commenced incorrectly, evidence not documented accurately and Eugene McGee being so well known in the industry ultimately influenced the outcome of his case. These weaknesses affected the chances of Di Gilchrest bringing justice to her deceased husband Ian Humphries. Strengths during this case were Di’s right to a legal representative, the system of appeal and also the power of a petition. Strengths and weaknesses were displayed throughout the case.

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

Australia’s judicial system relies heavily on an Adversarial System of law. The Adversary System is a characteristic of common law. It involves a system of law which has two opposing sides known as the defence and the prosecution. Both sides present their case to an impartial judge or jury in attempt to achieve justice.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunals (commonly abbreviated to the AAT), is an Australian tribunal which was established in 1976. The primary role of the AAT is to independently review administrative decisions made by Ministers, departments, agencies, and other tribunals based on their merits, and to either affirm, vary, or set aside those decisions. In order to determine whether or not the AAT is functioning efficiently and that it is serving its purpose, we must look at the way that the tribunal formulates it’s decisions through the use of ‘merits review’, the structure of the tribunal itself and its distinction from a courtroom, and finally whether or not the AAT has effective jurisdiction in an effort to uphold the right of an individual to independent administrative review, and also to keep governments accountable.

The adversarial and inquisitorial trial systems are the two most widely used in the world, both operating in similar but different ways. The adversarial system is a system based on the notion of two adversaries battling in an arena before an impartial third party, with the emphasis on winning. There are five main elements of the adversarial system; the role of the judge, the role of the parties, the role of legal representation, burden and standard of proof and the rules of evidence of procedure. The inquisitorial system is a method of legal practice in which the judge endeavours to discover facts while simultaneously representing the interests of the state in a trial. In this system, the judge is primarily responsible for

In criminal cases a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. In any U.S. court of law, the prosecution must provide the evidence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt against the defendant of the crimes they are charged with, and the prosecution must prove their case to a judge or jury for a guilty verdict in order to impose punishments. In civil cases the plaintiff must give proof of the incident or liability of responsibility. The burden of proof in a civil case compared to a criminal case is a less stringent of standards. The “Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof for most issues in civil litigation, reflecting the legal system’s assumptions that the standard “results in a roughly equal allocation of the risk of error between litigants” (Schwartz & Seaman, 2013). What this standard simply means, is that more likely the evidence presented supports the party’s legal claim, but does not necessarily have to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in civil litigation may initially start with the plaintiff, but after the plaintiff has presented their case, the burden can then change towards the defendant to refute the plaintiff’s evidence. In a criminal case the defendant does not have to do anything in court (Baum,

Laws are not made to try to limit people freedoms, but are made for secure these freedoms by prohibiting anyone else from violating or robbing them. It prevents people from harming each other and do uncomfortable thing to others. Another purpose of laws is for resolve disputes since are consistent rules made to be applied in almost every situation.

1. I believe the adversarial approach to court proceedings tends to render a just determination in most cases. However, I also believe the adversarial approach has faults within the system. The adversarial system offers many safeguards to ensure that justice is fair. Lawyers are allowed to have a decision in the jury process at both civil and criminal proceedings. Yet, the civil matters can only have a jury in Superior Court for specific types of claims. Selection of the jury helps the advocates ensure that their clients receive the highest fairness of justice. Advocates do their best to ensure that all jury members are impartial to their clients matter.

The law is a body of principles established by parliament (ie. by our representatives) and by the courts. Hence, law is made by us (the men and women who are in parliament and judges) for us and was developed to set standards of conduct between people, businesses and government. If these standards of conduct are not followed, the law sorts the conflicts that arise, and punishes those who breach these standards of conduct. We have laws so that society can work effectively, to make sure that people or organisations are not able to use power, money or strength to take advantage and exploit others or for creating better things for themselves. Laws help people or group of people to make sure that they understands their rights and obligations, and the rights and obligations of others

In all cases, the accused/defendant is always innocent until proven guilty, therefore, it is the prosecutor/plaintiff’s job to prove the judge or jury wrong. In a criminal case, the accused must have their guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt (over 95% sure), however a civil