Speech On Nsw's Transitory Bail Law

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.

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

The criminal justice system plays a fundamental role in achieving justice, as the system aims to protect all members of the community fairly and equally. However, in the criminal case of R v Loveridge, it is evident that the justice system fails to apply the law to equally balance the needs of the victims and the community. In this case, the offender Kieran Loveridge pleaded guilty to five counts of offences; three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the victim being Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 4 years’ non-parole for manslaughter, Loveridge’s total effective sentence therefore is 7 years and 2 months with an effective

Prior to 28th January 2015, bail laws posed significant loopholes in the system and are deemed to be ineffective to achieve justice. Accused offenders may get away with bail based with evidence in the case if it does not seem to pose a threat to the community. The problem persists within the conditions set for their bail, as responsibility lies upon the magistrate or police to impose appropriate conditions. However, though conditions do vary, it possesses a significant risk if the conditions enforced were not strict enough, opening vulnerabilities for the accused to commit another crime, slipping through their enforced conditions.

Critically assess the applicability of this statement as an analysis of the current approach of the judiciary to statutory interpretation in Australia.

The men have had to live and put up with the brutal consequences for a crime they possibly did not commit. Meaning, that the true murderer is roaming freely on the streets. Compensation may help but never completely heal the damage done. This is showing that there is a huge flaw in our appeals process in South Australia. So many more appeals are becoming successful, therefore, convicts are having their jail time cut shorter or their conviction(s) removed. By having the right to a free trail this can all be avoided (Adelaidenow.com.au, 2015).

Preventative Detention Orders serve as a viable alternatives to judicial trials, by allowing Police to ‘detain or restrict the movement of individuals without charge or conviction’. External reviews of PDO’s by the Law Council of Australia has deemed these measures ‘justifiably balance security and civil liberties’ by prioritizing community safety over the presumed innocence of terror

Indefinite detention is an extremely controversial issue consisting of valid arguments on both sides of the debate; however, Queensland’s Dangerous Prisoners (Sex Offenders) Act 2003, including the amendment made to it in 2009 and part 10 of the Penalties and Sentences act 1992 (Qld) all provide a desirable outcome. These laws are scrutinized by many but evidently all contribute to the equitable way that this system functions. Although on the face of it, indefinitely detaining a prisoner may be perceived by some as infringing the fundamental rules of law, in reality extensive measures are taken through the legislative processes of these laws to ensure that a just decision is made in respects to the continuation of a detention order. By doing

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

Once an offender is put into jail, they can be bailed out. Normally post bail is

In relation to the Charter, my advice is that Josh’s conduct is not protected and the cancellation of his parole by the Adult Parole Board was not in breach of the Charter. Moreover, the conduct of Dianne and Cary is initially protected by the Charter however due to the limitations placed upon human rights it can be argued that Dianne and Cary’s conduct are indeed in breach. Additionally Victoria police in partner with AX6 are in breach of numerous rights set out in the Charter, which will be discussed in further detail.

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.

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.

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

“Our focus is on the human rights of Australians who are threatened by home-grown terrorism… We have to do all we can to prevent young Australians from taking up arms to fight with these terrorist organisations.”- Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. The Australian government is constantly making changes to keep up with new demand for protection. New laws are constantly being introduced to keep Australians safe and stamp out home grown terrorism. Over the last few years preventative detention orders and control orders have been introduced in an attempt to reduce the risk of attacks on Australian soil. Stricter anti-terrorism laws have made the wider community feel safer, however, is it possible that these laws have compromised human rights of certain individual?