The Presumption of Innocence Down Under

The Clerk was performing various administrative tasks instructed by the Magistrate. Prior to the Magistrates’ arrival, The Clerk ensured that the courtroom was in order. As we sat down in the public gallery, he approached and asked if we had visited for observational purposes. His role also included examining and assembling legal documents and materials that were required for the proceedings to take place. In addition, the clerk reviewed and identified documents from each party before handing them over to the Magistrate. He was assisting in the

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.

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

During her study of the Scottish criminal justice system, McBarnet was able to construct an idea of a “two-tier” justice system. In her work, McBarnet reported on the major disparity of proceedings and procedures between the higher and lower courts. Upon my observation of proceedings in the lower and higher courts, I believe this ‘gap’ is prominent in the NSW criminal adversarial system.

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 author will determine courtroom groups, how the groups interact daily, and recommend changes to the groups. The author will also describe prosecutor roles and the cases he pursues. Finally, the author will elaborate on the funnel of criminal justice with the backlog among the courtroom group, the court system, give an example, and explain how to eliminate backlog cases.

Findlay, M, Odgers, S, & Yeo, S 2014, Australian criminal justice, 5th edn., Oxford University Press, Melbourne, VIC.

The Canadian Justice System is built on the principal of the presumption of innocence where emphasis is placed on on ensuring that the innocent go free rather than the guilty being convicted (Huff, 2013). However, miscarriages of justice occur when an individual is wrongfully conviction, and such an occurrence tarnishes the system’s reputation greatly (Campbell & Denov, 2005). According to the edited case files presented by Moldaver (2009), Romeo Phillion was wrongly convicted of the murder of an Ottawa firefighter, Leopold Roy in 1972. Roy had been stabbed on August 9th of 1967, four and a half years prior to when Phillion had been charged with the crime in 1972 after confessing to the murder while in police custody. Despite recanting the confession immediately, the relatively short trial led to a guilty verdict but after investigations decades later, it determined that the prosecutor 's misconduct had led to the miscarriage of justice (Anderson, 2008). After a series of appeals and references, the case was reopened in 2009 which led to the conviction being overturned, and a new trial ordered whereby the Crown had withdrawn the murder charge because of the lack of reasonable prospect of conviction (Harland-Logan, 2014). Nevertheless, Phillion’s proven innocence after his 31 years of incarceration made him the longest-serving wrongfully convicted prisoner in Canadian history (Anderson, 2008). With this considered, the wrongful conviction of Romeo Phillion had been due to

Through my observations of all three courts, it was plain that all players present in the courtroom were there to administer justice and maintain the equity of our society. By providing a competent and impartial governing body to conduct the trial, but also by doing so: in a timely and thorough manner, while protecting the accused’s inherent rights, and by educating those partaking in the process as well as making educated decisions themselves.

When looking at the other element of the functionality of law in our court systems, the law in action, one must understand that this is literary the way the actors in the courtroom interpret the letter of the law. These players in the court room are the judges, lawyers, the defendant, and victims (Neubauer and Fradella, 2009). The law in action can be very confusing to the average person because of the many different interpolations that can come from so many different actors in the court system.

On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The

The Innocence Project was established in the wake of a landmark study by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Senate with help from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (Schneider, 2013). This study found that there were numerous reasons why people are wrongfully convicted including, but not limited to eye witness identification, perjured testimony, improper forensic science techniques, and government misconduct (Roberts & Weathered, 2009) The original Innocence Project was founded twenty two (22) years ago as a part of the Cardoza School of Law of Yeshiva University in New York City, New York (Davis, 2012). The Innocence Projects primary goal is to exonerate those whom have been convicted of a crime when there is DNA evidence available to be tested or re-tested (Mitchell, 2011). DNA testing has been possible in five (5) percent to ten (10) percent of cases since 1992 (Risinger, 2007). On the other side, other members of the Innocence Project help to exonerate those have been convicted of a crime where there is no DNA evidence to test. A goal of the Innocence Project is to conduct research on the reasons for wrongful convictions, how to fix the criminal justice system, as well as advocate for those who have been wrongfully convicted (Steiker & Steiker, 2005). The members of this organization strive to teach the world about the dangers of wrongful convictions. To date, this non-profit legal organization, has freed three hundred eighteen (318)

During a trial, there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct that must be observed. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecution. According to one author, “Police, prosecutors, and criminal court Judges see too much crime, so they tend to see crime everywhere. We need rules to control their conduct, Judges to carefully apply those rules, and other Judges to review those decisions (law-article.net).” Courtroom procedures are important because, without them, defendants and prosecution alike could be treated unfairly. These procedures give a standard format for trials that must be followed to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their

“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 11, “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense” (Claiming Human Rights). This right to the presumption of innocence is a basic human right, which everyone is entitled to because a human right is a right one has because one is human. However, in some cases people do not presume ‘innocent until proven guilty’ perspective, rather their thinking is the opposite, ‘guilty until proven innocent’. This is illustrated in the case of Denice Haraway, who one day disappeared from her job at a convenience store in Ada, Oklahoma. The police took off on a relentless mission to capture the person(s) responsible for this heinous act and, they did everything in their power to bring someone or anyone to justice, which they did when they arrested Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot. Even though they repeatedly said they were innocent, but everyone including the police believed them to be responsible because they ‘confessed’ to committing the crime, a confession based on a dream. This paper will illustrate the reasons that are relevant to the innocence of these two men. The one factor that is persisted throughout this case is the incompetent efforts of the law enforcement such as inadequate efforts on the crimes scenes leading to lost of evidence, not following proper protocol in