Australian Legal System Case Study

The Australian health care system is not a very complicated one, it is solely based on two main sectors which are the ‘public’ and ‘private’. The public sector allows one to claim health care benefits and payments through the universal health coverage developed by the Australian government, called Medicare. Medicare is completely free and paid by the government through income tax received to help pay for medical, optical and hospital care (Humanservicesgovau, 2016). It also has a sub-division called the ‘Medicare safety net’ which is more so given to those on significantly low incomes to aid in financial distress. Similarly, the private sector is made up of different companies entitling different benefits, usually consisting of two plans, ‘hospital’ and ‘generic’ (Privatehealthgovau, 2016). The private health care system is more so for people who need immediate attention as the public health system has a waiting list for many different types of operations. Private health system is also customisable in circumstances such as

The Australian healthcare system has been evolving since the beginning of the colonisation of Australia. Today, Australia has an extremely efficient healthcare system although it still has several issues. The influencing factors, structure, and current issues of the Australian healthcare system will be throughly discussed and explained in this essay.

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 Australian legal system follows a formal structure, strict rules of evidence and conduct and utilizes the adversarial system of trial for both criminal and civil proceedings. The procedure relies on the skills of representatives of each party and evidence concerning the case presented to an impartial judge or magistrate (and sometimes a jury). Courts apply fairness to a profound extent through adopting the doctrine of natural justice, parties involved have the right to know accusations made so they are able to collect evidence for defence and cross examination. Fairness was practiced in the case Southan v Costa (2017) NSWLEC 1230 that cited the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 which instructed the Land and Environment Court NSW on only making an order if the tree concerned had caused harm or posed future threat. Fairness was also demonstrated through the referral to precedents including the Freeman v Dillon (2012) NSWLEC 1057 to assess the degree of damage, necessary action and consistent orders. The previous cases assisted in concluding the orders of the Court ‘requiring periodic removal of dead wood’ to reduce the risk of injury and annoyance of natural shedding past the respondent’s property. Court jurisdiction and high enforceability aid in achieving justice for individuals when ruling sentences and court orders. Enforceability is exemplified when the actor Steve Bisley was ordered to perform 300 hours of community service by the magistrate of Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court for charges of actual bodily harm relating to domestic violence towards his former wife Sally Burleigh in September 2009. This case additionally reflected equality in application regardless political, social and religious standing, gender and racial identity. The effectiveness of courts achieving justice in

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

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.

There are certain areas of conflict between the Aboriginal Justice system and the Australian Law. Persons following the aboriginal customary laws if

Australian laws have two forms, public and private law. Public law is an individual versus the Australian government, for example, criminal law, constitutional law and environmental law. It involves public bodies, public matters and is the concern of everybody in Australia. Private law involves disputes between private citizens or entities, for example, contract law, family law and probate laws.

Key features and doctrines of the Australian legal system are the rule of law, procedural fairness and the court hierarchy which are all crucial to achieving justice. Justice is achieved when people are treated without bias, a case is handled just, and equal outcomes are achieved for both parties.

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

The Australian Legal system is made up of three institutions; the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The functions of law are Social Cohesion and Social Progress, and each of these have a number of components within them that the legal system upholds. Social cohesion is the willingness of members of society to cooperate with each other to not only survive, however, thrive. Social cohesion involves Values of society, Acceptable standard of conduct, Dispute resolution, Evolve when necessary and Right and responsibilities. Social Progress is the improvement of social, political and economic structures, which can be a direct result of human action, or naturally as part of a society’s evolution and allows a smooth transition from one

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.

<br>Towards the mid section of the Australian Court Hierarchy System, lies the County of District Court. The cases that this court's jurisdiction covers is very similar to those of the Supreme Court. This particular court hear appeals from the lower courts and a great majority of criminal hearings are heard in these courts. The judges appointed to hear the cases of this court are appointed by the State Parliament. The Country Court's jurisdiction is empowered to hear civil disputes in which one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or less is claimed for personal damages.

Many laws in Western society base their laws and constitutions of the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta stands for trial by jury. It stands for free speech, the rule of law and personal liberty. All constitutions have this written down as it is a necessity today in the 21st century. In the Australian constitution, in chapter 3, page 80, it states that “any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed”.