The Efficacy Of Australia's Civil Justice 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

The NSW Police Force as the first responders of the justice system was an effective mechanism for achieving justice through its process of

In today's Australia the price of handling a substantial litigation matter is unobtainable for the average Australian, justice does indeed go to the highest bidder and “Unless you are a millionaire or a pauper, the cost of going to court to protect your rights is beyond you.” George Brandis, shadow attorney-general. To say that justice is earned and reserved for the population of Australia is a myth and it is true that legal aid community centres are grossly underfunded and explicitly for those in dire need of legal aid and do not represent the common Australian, there is no universal legal safety-net unlike the education and health systems.

Alternative dispute resolution is a highly effective instrument in resolving conflict and attaining justice for individuals in relation to resource efficiency and timeliness through utilising mediation, conciliation and arbitration. Mediation is an exceptionally efficacious informal process of dispute resolution, usually confidential and conducted with the assistance of an

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

Before going to trial, the parties meet, with their attorneys to represent them, to try to resolve their dis­pute without the involvement of a third party. This is

Having made visits to the Supreme, District and the Local Courts, I was able to obtain a better understanding of the Australian adversarial system. This report will attempt to analyze the distinctions between the different types of courts through primary observations. The report will also assess the models of justice in operation, the triviality of the lower courts compared to the higher courts and assess court procedure in each court.

The adversarial nature of the Australian court system is fundamentally implemented to ensure a fair and impartial trial for members of the public, yet this is not always the case. Access to justice, and the courts themselves, are often perceived quite variably depending on an individual’s experience with such institutions. In particular, it is often the disadvantaged in our society, such as those from low socio-economic backgrounds, youth and Indigenous Australians, who are the most neglected and disheartened by fair access to the court systems. However, this is not to say that the system specifically works in favor of educated, white individuals. The systematic approach to court processes, consisting of the apparent impartiality of judges and trials by jury, often impede the natural course of justice and do not allow for a fair and unbiased trial.

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.

Despite the echoed understanding that white and black shared the same law, the introduction of legal procedures such as coronial inquiries into Aboriginal deaths on Queensland’s pastoral frontier highlighted that justice for Aboriginals in the criminal law institution would not be achieved (Nettelbeck, 2013, 358). Today Indigenous Australians are severely over-represented as a group in the criminal justice system. It is well documented that Indigenous Australians are more likely to be sentences to a period of imprisonment, less likely to receive bail and are frequently overcharged (Allard et al., 2010 and Carpenter & Ball 2012,97)

The New South Wale’s criminal justice system aims to meet the needs of its society through its role in maintaining fairness, justice and equality. However, many flaws and faults still exist in the system that does not always result in the most beneficial outcome for the whole community. From the inappropriate use of a jury in the criminal trial process, the misuse of powers from law enforcement agencies such as the police and the unfair bail conditions for young offenders, it can be seen that the criminal justice system is failing to meet the needs of its community by not balancing the protection of the community with the protection of freedom and rights of individuals. These issues need to be recognised and amended in order to ensure that

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.

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.

Based on the 2012 survey conducted by the New South Whales Law and Justice Foundation, it showed that around 1.7 million Australians can expect to encounter a legal problem each year and 490,000 of those people will not receive legal advice due to financial reasons or lack of knowledge. The prices for legal services have increase by 49% in the last 6 years alone. This dramatic inflation of costs within the justice system leads to increased difficulty within society to be able to afford anything but the most basic of legal representation. When people who can’t afford a lawyer turn to government funded legal assistance, they find that due to chronic funding shortages, ongoing help is often restricted to those on only the lowest incomes and even further, is only for a narrow collection of family and criminal legal

Court is one of the more complicated methods for resolving disputes, but is also regarded as one with the highest quality of decision making. It is defined as an official forum where two parties come and present their arguments to a juridical party who administers justice. The Australian court system is hierarchical, where some courts are more important than others and handle different cases depending upon its severity.