The Nature Of Justice In The Australian Justice System

Justice can be a controversial subject when it comes to what people want to get out of it. Victims of offences want offenders to be penalised accordingly for their actions, though justice does not always work in their favour. For some people in society, justice can vary from having to pay significant fines to incarceration but how can we truly achieve justice as a community? Communities should come together to work out processes and orders to achieve the type of justice they want to see, focusing on long term outcomes instead of the short term. ‘Priority is given to the community, enhancing its responsibility for social control while building its capacity to achieve this and other outcomes relevant

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

The criminal justice system within Australia is the means through which those who break rules stipulated within legislation and legal regulations are brought to justice in the form of punishment. The legal and non-legal measures implemented are applied across all aspects of crime. The legal measures include all institutions and processes enabled by law to deal with aspects of the criminal justice system. Non-legal measures include diversionary programs such as restorative justice. The use of non-legal measure in achieving justice is generally seen when dealing with young offenders. It is used in an attempt to allow the

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.

This essay looks at Indigenous Australians in relation to the institution of ‘Criminal Law’. In this context, criminal law refers to legal processes such as police questioning, investigation and detainment as well as arrest, custody and bail. It also encompasses associated court procedures up to the point of sentencing. The focus will be to first outline the importance of criminal law to Indigenous Australians and then provide a critical analysis of the unique experiences and barriers that this group encounter in accessing criminal law in a positive way. Following this analysis, the development of possible ways to improve Indigenous access to criminal law will be discussed. Particular attention will be given to the way in which Indigenous Australians are affected by the transition of our modern justice system toward broader social justice concepts that incorporate risk management of potential criminal behaviour. From this discussion a conclusion will be drawn as to whether or not Indigenous Australians enjoy equality of criminal law and whether the structural elements of the law itself perpetuate Indigenous injustice and disadvantage.

The Australian legal system follows a formal structure, strict rules of evidence and conduct and utilizes the adversarial system of trial for both criminal and civil proceedings. The procedure relies on the skills of representatives of each party and evidence concerning the case presented to an impartial judge or magistrate (and sometimes a jury). Courts apply fairness to a profound extent through adopting the doctrine of natural justice, parties involved have the right to know accusations made so they are able to collect evidence for defence and cross examination. Fairness was practiced in the case Southan v Costa (2017) NSWLEC 1230 that cited the Trees (Disputes between Neighbours) Act 2006 which instructed the Land and Environment Court NSW on only making an order if the tree concerned had caused harm or posed future threat. Fairness was also demonstrated through the referral to precedents including the Freeman v Dillon (2012) NSWLEC 1057 to assess the degree of damage, necessary action and consistent orders. The previous cases assisted in concluding the orders of the Court ‘requiring periodic removal of dead wood’ to reduce the risk of injury and annoyance of natural shedding past the respondent’s property. Court jurisdiction and high enforceability aid in achieving justice for individuals when ruling sentences and court orders. Enforceability is exemplified when the actor Steve Bisley was ordered to perform 300 hours of community service by the magistrate of Sydney's Downing Centre Local Court for charges of actual bodily harm relating to domestic violence towards his former wife Sally Burleigh in September 2009. This case additionally reflected equality in application regardless political, social and religious standing, gender and racial identity. The effectiveness of courts achieving justice in

Like the media, the criminal justice system and organisations in and around the criminal justice system play a major contribution in the construction of an ‘ideal victim’. As stated by ‘….Rock (2006), Institutional practices shape the public representations and private understandings of victims of crime’. For instance, in Australia there are many organisations that help victims and their families of serious crimes. Although on the other hand, there are limited or no services available to victims of minor crimes.

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 Aboriginal concepts of justice compared to Western concepts of justice are quite different. Aboriginal peoples are therefore required to fit into a system that does not recognize their values. This difference in beliefs and values in relation to the criminal justice system represents a clash between the two cultures, which results in Aboriginal peoples being incarcerated at higher rates than non-Aboriginal

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.

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

However, under further analysis, it becomes apparent that the verdict acts more as a deterrent rather than an upstanding legal configuration. The legal system, for the average person in New South Wales, is only a figure of authority that deters the individuals from breaking the law, which some may say is what it is there to do. Conversely, we need it to do more than that, we need it to properly meet our requests when we are involved in legal

Victims of crime, particularly those violent in nature, have their rights violated and experience exceedingly high level of trauma and stress (Appendix B, 2015). It is surprising then, that Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) around the world forgo many victims’ rights and provided limited space for them to interact with the system (Sarre, 1999). Rather systems are built around balancing the rights of offenders against the greater safety and need of the community whilst neglecting individual justice needs of the victims (Sarre, 1999). With limited rights and minimal involvement a victim often becomes a disposable utensil to the CJS (Clark, 2010). They are used by the courts to determine the ultimate truth so justice may be served, with no care for the damage that may be caused in the process and then disposed of the case is concluded (Braun, 2014). In 2011-2012 a victimisation survey revealed that 1.2 million Australians were victims of personal crimes, such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Of these victims, only half of the crimes were reported to the police (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Such low reporting rates have been contributed in part to this notion of imbalance offender VS victims’ rights (Braun, 2014). Due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes, the limited available evidence and victim rights, these crimes tend to carry the lowest reporting rates (Braun, 2014). During the latest Australian