The Australian Judicial System

When Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was take from hospital to Sutherland police station he was interviewed/ interrogated like a suspect as the case had been turn to a sexual assault case and he was told that, “in the case of assault upon a wife, we always check out the husband’s story first”, (McLeod-Lindsay, A, 1984). Another role of investigators is to collect evidence. The police had bought a change of clothing for Alexander McLeod- Lindsay, so that they can take the clothes that he had wearing as evidence. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had now become the suspect of sexually assaulting and attempting to murder his wife and son. Alexander McLeod- Lindsay was found guilty of attempted murder due to the circumstantial evidence that was bought forward before the jury such as the blood splatter that was on the wall and blood stains found on the accused Alexander McLeod-Lindsay’s clothing. Despite the fact that there was no form of direct evidence such as someone eye witnessing the incident or even to point the finger that Alexander McLeod- Lindsay had committed the attempted murder of his wife and 4 year old son Bruce, the jury still convicted him of committing the offence, all based on circumstantial evidence. This highlights that Alexander McLeod-Lindsay experienced miscarriage of justice due to the fact the jury based their decision on the circumstantial evidence of blood stains that were found on Alexander

Case Note - Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 469

The question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

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.

Disputes between individuals can be resolved through mediation, tribunals and courts are sought depending on the complexity and nature of the dispute. Their effectiveness in achieving justice for and between individuals to varying extents will be assessed by their ability to uphold notions of fairness, equality, access, timeliness, enforceability and resource efficiency.

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 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.

Pierce and Chambers, Continuity evidence in criminal cases a somewhat defence perspective, viewed 1 April 2017,

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.

The Australian Legal system is made up of three institutions; the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The functions of law are Social Cohesion and Social Progress, and each of these have a number of components within them that the legal system upholds. Social cohesion is the willingness of members of society to cooperate with each other to not only survive, however, thrive. Social cohesion involves Values of society, Acceptable standard of conduct, Dispute resolution, Evolve when necessary and Right and responsibilities. Social Progress is the improvement of social, political and economic structures, which can be a direct result of human action, or naturally as part of a society’s evolution and allows a smooth transition from one

In Australia and in the United States, the trial process is very similar. The accused can be tried by a judge or they can take a chance and be tried by a judge and jury. An indictment is presented by the prosecutor and the accused is asked to plead guilty or not guilty. If the accused pleads guilty, then they will be sentenced. If the accused pleads not guilty, then they will go onto trial. In the trial the prosecutor will address the jury directly and outline their case against the accused. The prosecutor will then call witnesses to the stand to be questioned. Defense will also get a chance to cross examine the witnesses. The prosecutor must provide evidence to convince the jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Lastly,

The term "Court Hierarchy" is a very important word in the law world in modern society. It's definition gives a very clear and concise meaning to the law industry. The phrase can be split into two words to be easily dealt and understood. The word "court" is from a Greek derivative "cohors" or "cohort" meaning courtyard or retinue. It's definition from the dictionary certainly portrays the law as a very important and distinguished practice. "a. A person or body of persons whose task is to hear and submit a decision on cases at law." "b. The building, hall, or room in which such cases are heard and determined." The word, "hierarchy", however, has a more powerful and specific relation to the law world. It is a Greek derived word and

Common law also permitted the prosecution to adduce evidence that was relevant to the accused’s guilt of the offence charged,

Section 12 of the Evidence Act provides the rules concerning the competence and compellability of witnesses that are called to adduce evidence for a party to a proceeding. The section states that ‘every person is competent to give evidence’ and that ‘a person who is competent to give evidence about a fact is compellable to give that evidence’.

Whilst I understand the notion, for evidence to be admissible there must be proof, I believe this creates an inherent bias against the defendant who is taken off guard, and does not have a reasonable opportunity to collate evidence. Such a rigid procedural stance inevitably creates two streams of fact: one is the layperson’s version, and the other is recognised in law. Whilst this admissibility criteria is applicable to both parties, it places a disproportionate burden on the defendant, given their inferior resources. As a result the State is effectively granted excessive discretion over the submission of evidence. This highlights how the adherence to efficiency, which filters general facts into admissible ones, may undermine procedural