The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.
Both models’ fundamental principal is discovering the truth. The crime control model focuses on the truth regardless of how it is reached whereas the due process model places restrictions on what the state can do to discover the truth. In addition, the crime control model aims for the repression of criminal conduct, whilst the due process model aims to prevent and eliminate crime. Packer’s intentions were not to create two separate models; rather he intended to create a spectrum from one extreme to the other. The Scottish legal system does not wholly consist of crime control elements nor due process elements. It is a mixture of both of these models that attempts to balance the rights of the state to secure a conviction, with the rights of the accused to a fair trial. It can be seen that there is not an appropriate balance between the two as there is not equal and proportionate rights given to both parties, resulting in excessive protection being given to the defendant. This imbalance is best described by discussing the powers of the state in contrast to the defendant’s rights pre-trial and during trial.
Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress sprang into action. Within a month, U.S. lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the USA Patriot Act of 2001, giving law enforcement and intelligence agent’s broader authority to fight terrorists operating in the United States.
Procedural fairness is an extremely important factor in achieving justice in the legal system. The importance of procedural fairness can be displayed through the case of Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) as there was a lack of procedural fairness applied, resulting in a lack of justice. Dr Haneef was suspected of terror related offences and subsequently held without charge for an excess of 12 days due to evidence linking him to a terrorist attack in Glasgow. This evidence was later proven incorrect. The links between Haneef and the suspected offences were not enough to go to trial. Dr Haneef was incarcerated for three weeks, two of which he was held in 23 hours isolation, after being wrongly convicted of a 'reckless association with terrorist groups.' His reputation was tainted and his VISA revoked, as well as his wife's without any reason for the cancellation. All of these actions during the investigation of Haneef show a lack of procedural fairness resulting in his unjust treatment. Justice was not achieved in the case of Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007). This case reinforces the importance procedural fairness has in the legal system as it reflects the legal system not achieving justice when an individual is not treated with equal rights, opportunities and awareness of what is occurring. Therefore, the doctrine of procedural fairness is essential to achieving
One of the fundamental principles of the Criminal Law System is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (McSherry, 2003). By enacting punitive legislation such as the examples given above, it has been said that it is removing this Common law right from the individual (Greig, 1995). It has also been said that it creates an exception to the general principle of law that no person shall be imprisoned unless a court comprised of Judge/Jury is convinced, beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed a very serious offence. Thereby effectively allowing people to be detained without the burden of proving guilt (Keon-Cohen, 1992).
Law enforcement response to counter-terrorism fundamentally changed as a result of the unprecedented events of September 11th 2001 in New York and Washington (Kaldas, 2002, p61-62). This essay will examine how law enforcement has evolved in response to the changing nature of terrorism, with an emphasis on how this has impacted Australia. An analysis of arrests and subsequent
The Patriot Act of 2001 has in many ways changed the way that acts of terrorism and other crimes related to terrorism are handled within the Federal system. The Patriot Act in many ways unites under one law code a few different important clauses relating to tools available to federal law enforcement and also to the new more pressed penalties for terrorist acts. The entire act within itself provides law enforcement a new set of measures and procedures to combating terrorist on the financial field as well as the domestic home front. The most basic of tools that many law enforcement agencies have took advantage of were with the passing of the Patriot Act of 2001 becoming newly available to that of federal investigatory
The primary initiatives of the Patriot act is to prevent terrorism by effectively utilizing already available tools; improving the information sharing process; utilizing technology to identify terrorists; and by increasing the penalties to those who commit terrorist attacks, terrorist related crimes as well as those who conspire and help terrorists (Department of Justice, n.d.). Prior to the Patriot Act, many of the tools that already existed, that could also be useful to prevent a terrorist attack but were not being used to their full potential, and that have been used for many years by law enforcement officers and federal agents to combat other crimes such as drug trafficking or murder crimes, were too difficult to utilize to combat terrorism
3) “It was not until after 9/11 that democratic countries introduced legislation that criminalised an ‘act of terrorism’” (O’Hare, 2011) To aid police in their fight against terrorism, the Australian Government has made a significant number of changes to current legislation, as well as introducing a number of new counter-terrorism laws to assist law enforcement in responding to terrorist threats. “The states and territories have referred legislative powers to the Commonwealth to allow the creation of a single set of terrorism offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the Criminal Code).” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) These amendments, and additional legislation, have been instrumental in allowing law enforcement to respond to terrorist threats. In addition to new criminal offences, new powers include; more effective detention and questioning powers; the ability to declare terrorist organisations illegal; and the ability to exercise more control over people’s movements. The new counter-terrorism “offences are aimed at individuals who engage in, train for, prepare, plan, finance or provide support for terrorist acts.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 55) Other tools within the Criminal Code available are ‘control orders’ and ‘preventative detention’. “Control orders are protective measures that can restrict a person’s movements and activities.” (Counter-Terrorism White Paper, 2010, p. 57) Whereas
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will
Terrorism can, and must, be fought within the rule of law and the human rights framework. Following the bombings in London of July 2005, the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair warned that 'the rules of the game are changing' . The proposed changes relate primarily to foreign terror suspects, changing rules relating to asylum, deportation and nationality. There have been a number of international attacks on national security with terrorism at the forefront. The introduction of necessary counter-terrorism measures has placed limitations on the exercise of suspects’ human rights.
Let us start with the law; after a terrorist attack law always gets drastic changes in any country. For instance, after the 9/11 in United Stated, at least 11 laws has been changed, from what type of officers will work for the government and there has been a lot of viewing on the life’s of people. In some other countries such as India when they encountered the terrorist attack in Mumbai a special law for formed for interrogation of UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Amendment) was passed, it changes the trial process of those who are accused in terrorist’s activities, extends the period of police custody and detention without charges and denies the bail to foreigners.
The causes of wrongful convictions are easy to identify: irregularities and incompetence at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages of the criminal justice system. More particularly, Kaiser identifies the following contributory factors, among others: false accusations, misleading police investigative work, inept defense counsel, misperceptions by Crown prosecutors of their role, factual assumption of an accuser’s guilt by actors in the criminal justice system, community pressure for a conviction, inadequate identification evidence, perjury, false confessions, inadequate or misinterpreted forensic evidence, judicial bias, poor presentation of an appellate case, and difficulty in having fresh evidence admitted at the appellate stage. Each instance of determined wrongful conviction illustrates a different combination of failures in the criminal justice system that has