Fairness In The Australian Legal System

Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR) is any method of resolving disputes other than by litigation. Public courts may be asked to review the validity of ADR methods, but they will rarely overturn ADR decisions and awards if the disputing parties formed a valid contract to abide by them. The two major forms of ADR are arbitration and mediation; but we can also

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

The New South Wales (NSW) criminal justice system has been separated into “two tiers of justice”. The two tiers of justice involve the separation of lower and higher courts, where the lower courts are comprised of Local courts and the higher courts are comprised of District and Supreme courts. The local courts role lies mainly in exercising summary jurisdiction whereas more serious indictable offences are dealt with in higher courts. However, there is more than just a jurisdictional divide and there are other aspects that significantly distinguish the lower courts from the higher courts.

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.

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.

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.

The administration of criminal justice and the operation of criminal process play an important role in our ever-changing society. The current structure of the New South Wales criminal justice system, as described by leading critic Doreen McBarnet as the ‘two tiers of justice’, has attracted many critiques namely the ideology of triviality, summary offence punishment and other legal notions such as technocratic justice. I have applied the above concepts during the course of my observation to Local, District and Supreme Courts of New South Wales in April 2016. The following report will assess the validity of the above concepts at a practical level in light with my observation and research, drawing intrinsic links between two tiers of justice and technocratic justice, and concluding with the two tiers of justice as a necessary framework in our modern criminal justice system.

Due to negative aspects that were presented in cases such as the Corey Davis case, the effectiveness of the Australian Legal System in accomplishing justice began to be viewed to demonstrate flaws in certain occasions by the Australian public. The Australian legal system aims to achieve equality and fairness towards the citizens of Australia to avoid anarchy within the nation. This is accomplished by set rules and laws that are created by the government. However, if these rules and laws are to be broken by an individual or a group of people living within the borders of the country, they may face legal consequences that include getting a fine, imprisonment, a life sentence or in some occurrences, a combination of these forms of punishment. In the Corey Davis case, an eleven year old boy that is identified as ‘W’ is sent to trial for committing an offence towards a six year old boy. An outline of the events in the Corey Davis case will be further explored as well as the involvement of the police, the conduct of the court system throughout the investigation of the case and its influence in achieving justice, and a summary of the trial. Furthermore, the debate about the current age limit for doli incapax and whether it is appropriate for modern society will be discussed as the Corey Davis case raised arguments about this topic. The Australian legal system aims to achieve justice, however certain instances such as the Corey Davis case have proved that it may occasionally

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.

However, under further analysis, it becomes apparent that the verdict acts more as a deterrent rather than an upstanding legal configuration. The legal system, for the average person in New South Wales, is only a figure of authority that deters the individuals from breaking the law, which some may say is what it is there to do. Conversely, we need it to do more than that, we need it to properly meet our requests when we are involved in legal

I believe our legal system is fair to a certain extent. My contemplation about the legal system is that I do believe certain laws are fair and good to keep our society sane. Not all of them are. For example, my biggest issue is that “innocent until proven guilty” is not the case for everyone dealing with the law and I say this from my own personal experience. People are arrested and jailed and then eventually, after months or even years proven to be innocent which is completely unfair in my opinion. They must live with that mistreatment and misjudgment for the rest of their lives. I also do not believe in jury duty because yes, it is fair that us as citizens have the opportunity to have a say in the law but not everyone is educated on

Alternate dispute resolution, as its name implies, offers an alternative to traditional civil litigation. The time and cost to bring a traditional civil case to trial are enormous. Alternate dispute resolution offers a more efficient settlement of disputes both in terms of time and money and has other benefits.

This essay will provide a detailed examination of what Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is, particularly mediation, the various techniques of ADR, the advantages and disadvantages of ADR; and whether or not courts should have the authority to compel individuals into undertaking mediation or other forms of ADR. This essay argues against courts having the power to compel litigants into mediation but may be afforded powers to encourage parties to go through mediation at first instance. This essay will base its arguments on whether courts should compel civil litigants to follow the ADR route upon the perceived advantages of ADR and its success rate. The contention of this essay is not that mediation is inappropriately used to settle

     Alternative Dispute Resolution or ADR refers to a number of various processes that can be used to resolve legal disputes other than by litigation. Recently, methods of dispute resolution which focus on arbitration, mediation and negotiation as an alternative to adjudication have gained notoriety. This notoriety may have been caused by the public perception that ADR methods are less expensive, more efficient, and more satisfactory than the normal traditional course of litigation. The goals of establishing these processes to resolve disputes as an alternative to more formal legal processes include: 1) to make the regular court system more efficient, less costly and more responsive to the needs of the litigants;