Prosecutorial Misconduct In Australia

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

For the purpose of this report, a visit to the Melbourne Magistrate's Court was made on 22nd March, 2016. On this day, the second day of a four day committal hearing was heard regarding the matter of Omer Cicekdag, presided over by Magistrate Ann Collins.

Juries are an essential component of Queensland’s criminal justice system. However, the current jury system in criminal law cases does not effectively meet the needs of society. This thesis is established by first examining the role that juries play in the criminal justice system and the various interests of those affected by juries. This is followed by a consideration of arguments for and against juries and reforms that may be made to the jury system. Overall, it will be seen that there are substantial reasons to reform the current system.

Restorative justice practices is seen as an innovative informal approach to criminal justice and is used as an alternative to the mainstream criminal court procedures. It offers alternate ways to aid in repairing the harm caused by the offenders and involves both the victim and offenders in the process. Surrounding restorative justice lies the debate that the practices are potentially more harmful than beneficial for the victims. This debate is complex and interminable, as there are various factors that can influence the outcome of the procedures. This essay will explore and discuss the concept of restorative justice and the practices that are commonly supported and conducted in Australia. The essay will then explore the debate around restorative

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse

While all of the topics that we have covered throughout this course have been troubling, the topic of prosecutorial misconduct is to me one of the most distressing; the mere thought of the possibility of misconduct by prosecutors gives me the chills, and the numerous examples featured within the assigned chapter readings, in addition to the online articles, only further my skepticism in the legal system and those individuals holding official positions. There appears to be a lot of similarities between prosecutorial misconduct and the topics that we discussed as possible reasons for faulty forensic science, such as a common trust bias in police officials, lack of universal standards, and other cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

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.

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

The Australian criminal justice system (CJS) is relatively effective in maintaining a balance of rights between victims, offenders, and society. As implied, the aim of the CJS is to provide justice. However, this can become an issue when attempting stretch it between multiple parties, due to the subjective nature of what is deemed ‘justice’. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the law, equality before the law, access to the law, enforceability of the law, protection of individual rights, resource efficiency and how the rights of individuals and society are balanced must be established.

Since 1923, when Judge Learned Hand said that the American judicial system “has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted,” the issue of wrongful conviction has been acknowledged to man (Halstead, 1992; Huff, Rattner, Sagarin, & MacNamara, 1986). After the judge made his innocuous statements, serious study of this phenomenon began. Contrary to the statement the judge made, time and technology have revealed that an unquantifiable number of wrongfully convicted persons have served prison terms and even been executed for crimes they did not commit and some that did not even occur. Research into wrongful conviction was virtually nonexistent until Professor Edward Brochard of Yale University published his book Convicting the Innocent in 1932. This book documented 65 such cases, addressed the legal causes of miscarriage, and offered suggestions to reform. Subsequently, numerous other researchers began conducting case studies and publishing findings that affirmed that wrongful conviction represents a systematic problem within the American judicial process (Huff, 2002).

The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.

Indeed, prosecutorial misconduct is an issue, a severe issue, but the rare occurrence does not dictate that the criminal process is broken. In fact, it could be argued, and should be argued, that the process prevents greater atrocities, including prosecutorial misconduct, from occurring.

America has long taken pride in being a nation of idealism and of freedom. Still, while these values have remained constant, other areas of the American mindset have evolved repeatedly over the brief course of America’s history. Nothing could illustrate this change more than the complex, developing, relationship between American citizens and their criminal justice system. Each era of American history shows the mindset of its time through the courts. From the extreme Puritans, and their deeply spiritual, irrational cases, to the politically charged events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and forward into the hodgepodge of contemporary justice, one can read the American conscience by examining the criminal cases at its forefront.

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