The High Court of Australia

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.

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.

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

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.

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) is a state tribunal for the Victorians that help and guide to resolve disputes on different aspects including Building and Property, Civil Disputes, Equal Opportunity, Guardians-Administrators, Joint Property and Water, Legal Practice, Owners Corporations, Retail Tenancies, State Taxation, Business Regulation, Domestic Building, FOI-TAC and other Claims, Health- Privacy / Disability Act, Land Valuation, Mental Health, Planning and Environment and Residential Tenancies.

The highest court and the final court of appeal in our country is the High Court of Australia, in the ACT. Interpreting and applying the Constitution are their two main roles. They also hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State or Territory courts (Hcourt.gov.au, 2010). The High Court has seen its fair share of notorious cases. Al-Kateb v. Godwin is one of the most debated and controversial cases Australia has seen.

My observation discovered the significant difference between the lower courts and upper courts in relations to court operations and process – namely the two tiers of justice. An overwhelming volume of cases were heard and dealt at the Local Court with expeditious environment. The empirical research also shows that on average, the time per matter dealt is four minutes and thirteen seconds, with more than half of matters being dealt less than two minutes. A stark contrast in length was observed at the Supreme Court where an atmosphere of slow pace,

Due to negative aspects that were presented in cases such as the Corey Davis case, the effectiveness of the Australian Legal System in accomplishing justice began to be viewed to demonstrate flaws in certain occasions by the Australian public. The Australian legal system aims to achieve equality and fairness towards the citizens of Australia to avoid anarchy within the nation. This is accomplished by set rules and laws that are created by the government. However, if these rules and laws are to be broken by an individual or a group of people living within the borders of the country, they may face legal consequences that include getting a fine, imprisonment, a life sentence or in some occurrences, a combination of these forms of punishment. In the Corey Davis case, an eleven year old boy that is identified as ‘W’ is sent to trial for committing an offence towards a six year old boy. An outline of the events in the Corey Davis case will be further explored as well as the involvement of the police, the conduct of the court system throughout the investigation of the case and its influence in achieving justice, and a summary of the trial. Furthermore, the debate about the current age limit for doli incapax and whether it is appropriate for modern society will be discussed as the Corey Davis case raised arguments about this topic. The Australian legal system aims to achieve justice, however certain instances such as the Corey Davis case have proved that it may occasionally

Sydney, I completely agree with you. His rights were violated to an extent. In our book it states that our rights end when others begin. When he was just holding up he sign and not yelling profanities his rights were protected by the first amendment. The second he started yelling profanities and causing a scene, is when his rights ended. I also agree that that officers did not detain him too roughly. They did what they had to do. The man was resisting arrest; furthermore, when a person does this, then the police have the right to arrest the person. I also agree that the sign was not he cause of his treatment. He was resisting arrest. The man had wrapped his leg around one of the officers. The treatment that he had received was mainly because

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if the

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.

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.

<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.