The Australian Legal System Of Australia

The Australian criminal justice system acknowledges the immaturity of young offenders compared with that of adult offenders, and thus impose system in which their crimes are dealt with. A criminal conviction relies upon a two-fold basis whereby the actus rea and mens rea must be proved, however young offenders are treated with a different level of responsibility as they have not reached adulthood. Referred to as juvenile justice, offenders under the age of 18 are recognised as requiring a greater level of protection and assistance due to their state of dependancy. Such programs are specifically geared to protect young offenders and aim to deal with youth in a more effective manner due to their increased vulnerable state.This protection is consistent throughout the criminal trial process and covers all stages starting from acknowledging the age of responsibility.

Intro: QLD’s legal system mainly consists of juries, evidences, standards of proof, court personnel, court hierarchies and presumptions of innocence. QLD’s legal system made, so it is fair to the victim and to the community, but there are still some missing points that lead to limited fairness.

Trial by jury throughout Australia, originates from the British judicial system. Britain’s control of many colonies, including Australia, during the period of the British Empire, was influential in forming a judicial system in the colonies, based on its own. Trial by jury is an important and integral part of the legal system. Many of our legal traditions, such as the number of members of a jury being twelve, originated from Britain. The jury is an important and vital part of Australia's criminal justice system today. In Western Australia, trial by a judge and jury was introduced in the mid 1800’s after the Swan River Settlement.

Within the context of the Australian judicial system, all legal proceedings are subject to certain rules regarding the admissibility of evidence. In the mid 1990’s, the existing rules of evidence were replaced by the Uniform Evidence Act’s, as a means whereby consistency of decision making could be better observed. These new rules lay out standards which must be strictly adhered to, to ensure that the rights of both parties to a case are respected, allowing for a fair trial to take place. The specific act which will be used is dependent on the jurisdiction of the court itself; all High Court, Federal Court, Family Court, Federal Magistrates Court, and ACT courts are subject to The Evidence Act (Cth). The Tasmanian, New South Wales and Victorian Evidence Acts are marginally different from that of the Commonwealth, however generally speaking they are the same with a few minor differences .

<br>Towards the mid section of the Australian Court Hierarchy System, lies the County of District Court. The cases that this court's jurisdiction covers is very similar to those of the Supreme Court. This particular court hear appeals from the lower courts and a great majority of criminal hearings are heard in these courts. The judges appointed to hear the cases of this court are appointed by the State Parliament. The Country Court's jurisdiction is empowered to hear civil disputes in which one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or less is claimed for personal damages.

The purpose of this essay focus on the important role of the doctrine of precedent in Australia legal system. The doctrine of precedent, in a simple words, is the principle that binds the common law together. As a general rule it means the courts were bound to follow the decisions of all courts superior to it in its own court hierarchy. This paper is divided into four parts. The first part mentions a background of the topic, the second part concentrates on analyzing the principle as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine of precedent. Finally the conclusion sums up the outcome of the research.

In the 6th century, the trial or ordeal began, later in the 11th century the common law developed in England and the Normans evaded England. The common law system was brought over to Australia in the year 1788. The courts of Equity were developed due to the common law courts are ‘unjust’. These courts introduced fairness into our common law system.

In our judicial system, new cases can be decided based on past decisions in our courts that were of similar circumstances. This means a legal precedent was set, which provides a level of consistency for interpreting the law (Bohm & Haley, 2011). Trial court judges can set precedent, however, it is normally reserved for the written findings of appellate judges (Bohm & Haley, 2011). In fact, appellate judges are obligated to put their decisions in writing (Bohm & Haley, 2011). These written findings set legal precedents and are known by many as common law (Bohm & Haley, 2011).

In asserting its judicial independence, the High Court in Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth stated it was ‘the ultimate decision-maker in all matters where there is a contest.’ Zywicki suggests that as long as the court follows precedent and thereby gives individuals more certainty of knowledge over the rights they possess, ‘social coordination and economic wealth’ will increase. The courts would not be relying on its discretion, but rules which will apply equally in the future. Thus, refining Dicey’s definition, Zywicki views ‘rule-based decision making’ as a basic concept of the rule of law.

The judiciary system establishes and acts out the laws within the states and territories of Australia, as well as resolving legal disputes through a court system. The legal responsibility an individual or organisation has to an issue is referred to as legal accountability, and the requirements of legal obligation within an issue are the statutory obligations.

Precedent is the process when judge makes a decision, and all future courts must follow it but can only be used if the reasons for previous decisions are known ‘’ratio decidendi’’

The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, lies at the heart of the English legal system. The doctrine refers to the fact that within the hierarchical structure of the English courts, a decision of a higher court will be binding on a court lower that is in that hierarchy. In general terms this means that when judges try cases they will check to see if a similar situation has come before a court previously. If the precedent was set by a court of equal or higher status to the court deciding the new case, then the judge in the present case should follow the rule of law established in the earlier case. Where the precedent is from a lower court in the hierarchy, the judge in the new case may not follow but will certainly

The key of the equity is fairness and ethics, the theories and the rule that was advanced by the Court of Chancery in English as describe from the courts of common law. Though, in Australian law, equity has a different meaning. That interpret can be the key of the law before the judicature Acts of 1873-1875, was arranged in England by the Court of Chancery, which be presented with followed a set of the rules in the Australian courts (Dal Pont and Chalmers, 2004, p.3).

The common law was initially referred to in the past as the “Law of England” by some judges and legal writers. Section 80 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) had made it mandatory for courts, in some cases, to apply 'the common law of England '. This was later was amended in 1988 to known as 'The Common Law in Australia '. Although it was derived from the English common law, there have been a lot of revisions and additions made to it for it to meet the judiciary needs of the Australian legal system.

The Australasian system of legal practice is derived from the United Kingdom which is from the British settlers in Australia. The legislations laws are formulated by the legislators which is the parliament of the state and the commonwealth countries. The law of the state must be consistent with the laws of the commonwealth. It means that any law that is not consistent with the commonwealth law in Australia is rendered invalid. This presents a significant impact on the same sex marriage debate. Before the changes in the Marriage Act, the definition of the term marriage was derived from the UK case. The common law is administered by the courts. The courts are bound by the principles of precedent which requires the court to adhere to the previous decisions of superior courts. This brings consistency and prediction in the practice of the common law. Marriage is Australia governed by the Commonwealth marriage Act of 1961 that defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” The constitution gives power to the commonwealth to come up with laws on marriage which it shares with the states. There must be vows or exchange of words for a marriage in addition to all other recognized ceremonies of different religion.