Media File Assessment: Petrovski's Case

In the U.S. judicial system, a defendant found guilty in a trial court can normally appeal to a higher federal court. These federal courts, or appellate courts, review decisions made by trial courts (Neubauer, 2010). Appellate courts can be on the federal and state level, but do not hold trials or hear new evidence. These courts consist of a judge, or a lawyer, or a group of either one, who read the transcript of the trial and whether the previous decision correctly or incorrectly followed the law (Neubauer, 2010). Similar to trial courts, the federal government and most states have made two different types of appellate courts: intermediate, which hear all cases, and supreme courts, which can pick and choose the cases heard (Neubauer, 2010). Even though there are many different types of courts within the judicial system of the United States, the role of the judge stays constant throughout the majority of branches.

    The state intermediate courts hear appeals from the trial court (Goldman and Cheeseman 10). These courts review the record from the trial court to determine errors that can ultimately modify or reverse the decision in a case. The highest state courts (commonly known as

The case was brought forward to the NSW Supreme Court in 2001 whereby Judge Hulme ordered both Respondents as negligent. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal whereby the judgement was granted in favour of the Respondents. This case affirms the previous decision.

He or she will hear the case from both oppositions in the court and then the judge will decide if the person is guilty and convicted of a crime or if they’re innocent. If the person is found to be guilty, the magistrate has to decide what sentence they will give to the person who is been convicted of a crime. The Magistrate also has their own rights as well. In this case, the Magistrate was Judge Megan Latham. She made the decision of giving the offender Roger Dean a life imprisonment for murder, larceny and grievous bodily harm. She was also incharge for making sure that the people in the court wouldn’t go out of control and if so, she had shout out order for peace in the

the particular level will be explained. The conclusion of the case will be described in detail as

On Wednesday, 17 August 2016 a hearing took place at the Cairns District Court in Sheridan Street, Cairns. The hearing was held in room 6, level 3 at 9:40am. The hearing was for a criminal sentencing of Mr Bradford Jules Thomas, the accused, and was proceeded by Judge Harrison.

D. Explain how each of the following influences decisions made by individual justices when deciding cases heard by the courts.

The High Court of Australia is essentially focused towards textualism, however as it can be seen there has been a more current relaxation of the rule in recent years.

At some stages, some appeals courts may hear oral arguments from the attorneys or even a hearing with witnesses, but most of it is on paper. Each appeals court can refuse the appeal, send it back for retrial for verdict or sentence only, or back to the lower appeals court for rehearing. But once it's into appeal, the State can also appeal the appeals court rulings before anything else happens, and that makes it different from the trial where the State can't appeal a not guilty verdict.

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 case of Mabo v Others v State of Queensland (No.2) (1992) 175 CLR 1 (www.austlii, 1993), rewrote common law as the court ruled in a six to one majority, that the people of

Another institution that protects our rights is shown by this case, the principle of separation of powers is on display, simply put the principle of the separation of powers refers to the three different branches of government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and how they provide for a system of checks and balances for one another (Donald Carper, 2011) ensuring all parts act within the scope of their powers. This is outlined by the fact that the actions of the executive where investigated by the courts to see if their actions were in compliance with the Australian Constitution and other relevant legislation passed, by ensuring that the government’s actions were in accordance with the rules stated in the constitution it was ensured that the government acted within its scope and there was no abuse of power, because if this system of checks and balances did not exist than there would be no way to stop one of the bodies from overstretching and doing something that is outside of their power, we need to hold institutions accountable in order to ensure people’s rights are protected and governments cannot implement any policy that they wish. Individuals may disagree about the outcomes of particular cases but it is vital to our democracy and our rights that all the outcomes of cases are based on the Constitution and the relevant legislation, by having everything follow a set guideline and by having systems to enforce these guidelines we ensure institutions

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.

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

Whenever an appellate court reverses a trial court decision, it instructs that court to rehear the case using the correct law and procedures. If the court sees that a “gross miscarriage of justice” is being done or that an error was obviously committed, they will usually overturn the trial court’s decision (Coffin, 85). In the vast majority of cases, the decision of a Court of Appeal is final. The state Supreme Court does not review the vast majority of cases – it steps in to resolve new or disputed questions of law. It is also the highest state appellate court for civil matters (supreme.courts.state