Police Courts and Criminal Law - Assignment Example

Running Header: Police Courts and Criminal Law Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: 1. I attended the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Sydney on Thursday 4th October 2012. 2. I attended a jury trial of R v Anthony Jones. The Judge was acting Justice G Barr. 3. The defendant was accused with a number of charges which included two count of murder, five counts of exceptional brutality causing bodily harm and unauthorized possession of firearm. The defendant pleaded guilty for possession of an illegal firearm but pleaded not guilty for murder and brutality. The charges against the defendant amounted to aggravating circumstances (Estalada, 2009). Aggravating circumstances are those factors which make a crime to appear worse to the defendant. These factors include exceptional cruelty, murder of a witness, premeditation and poisoning. This was evident in the case as the defendant was accused for murdering a witness who had seen him commit the first murder. Aggravating circumstances make a crime to be punished more severely. 4. There were 12 essential participants who were present in the courtroom. They included; the judge, the prosecutor, the defendant, the defendant solicitor, police informant, media, the public, the witness, associate judge, officers from new south Wales corrective department, the bailiff and the jury. Justice G Barr was seated at the high bench which was situated at the front of the court room. The judge controlled the hearing as well as the court. Moreover, the judge listened to the arguments of the prosecutor and those of the defendant solicitor. Hall, Ely and Grossman (2005) state that the Supreme Court judge has a role of reading the case laws, briefs, statutes, legal literature and precedents pertaining to each case. The prosecutor was the one who presented the case against the defendant and he was seated on the right side of the court. According to May, Minor and Ruddel (2007) note that the prosecutor helps the Supreme Court to reach the truth in relation to a case. The prosecutor has a duty of ensuring that justice and fairness prevails between the defendant and the community. In the case, the prosecutor represented the state. The prosecutor is expected to carry out further investigations in order to determine whether the defendant is wrongly accused for the crime. The prosecutor must also make well-timed disclosures in relation to the case. The accused that is Anthony Jones was the one against whom the case was brought in the Supreme Court. The court must hold the assumption that the accused is innocent until such a time that the prosecutor proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty for the offence (Ramen, 2009). The accused must be given the right to be represented by a solicitor and the right to be given a speedy and fair trial. Defendants accused of severe crimes should be charged by a grand jury (Hartman, Mersky & Tale, 29009). The accused solicitor represented the accused case in the court. According to Estalada (2009) the duty of the defendant solicitor is to protect the interests and the lights of the accused. The solicitor must try to convince the court that the accused is innocent. Furthermore, the accused solicitor has a duty of bringing forward some evidence as well as some arguments in order to convince the court to release the defendant on bail. Police informant who charged the accused was also present in the courtroom. The police informant is the one who filed the charges with the court registrar during the time of arrest of the accused. The police informant testified in the court and also gave his evidence in relation to why he filed charges against the accused. According to May, Minor & Riudell (2007) the informant lays down the charges which the accused faces in the supreme court. The media people were seated on the right side of the court room near the entry. Some of the media personnel had notebooks while others had sketchpads where they were recording notes as the trial progressed. The media provides information to the public and enables the public to understand what goes on in a Court (Hall, Ely & Grossman, 2005). This is because of the fact that most people do not go to the courts hence the need to provide them with information on what happens in a court. Therefore, the media offers the public with content relating to the various proceedings in the court. The public was seated at the back of the courtroom. According to the Supreme Court of New South Wales (2012) the location where the public sit in the courtroom is known as the public gallery. Court cases are open to the public in order to ensure that justice is done and at the same time to provide the public with an opportunity of seeing justice being done. The public may compose of the family members of the accused, friends and the general public who may be interested in the case. The public is expected to maintain order and not to disturb the court proceedings. The witness provided an account of the events that happened in relation to the case. The witness was swearing using a bible before providing his account of the events pertaining to the case. A witness can either provide expert evidence about the case or give an account relating to the events of the case (Moller, Levy and Lynch, 2006). Witness who provide information relating to the events of the case assist the court in administering justice in criminal cases while expert witness provide expert opinion evidence which is beyond the understanding of the normal citizens. The associate judge was seen completing some paperwork’s and keeping records which related to the proceedings of the case. He was sitting in the top far left corner in the front of the Judge and just below the high bench. According to the Supreme Court of New South Wales (2012) the associate judge acts as a confidential aid to the judge both outside and inside the courtroom. The associate judge is required to undertake legal research, ensuring efficient operation of the judge’s court and liaising with the court staff, the press, the public, the legal profession and other government departments. Two officers from New South Wales Corrective Department were sitting next to the accused dock which was located between the barrister tables and the public gallery in order to ensure security. The officers were the ones who escorted the accused into the court as well as when the accused was leaving the courtroom. The bailiff was the one who announced that the court was in session. Moreover, the bailiff was the one who was administering the oaths to the witnesses. Additionally, the bailiff was the one who escorted the jury members into the courtroom and also into the jury room. The bailiff also deals with practical issues for the jury (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 2012). The jury was seated on the right hand side between the media and the bailiff. According to Slapper and Kelly (2011) the jury has the responsibility of determining whether the accused is guilty by considering the evidence that has been brought against him or her. Juries do not give reasons for their decisions and are given the responsibility to decide on matters of fact in a case (May, Minor & Riudell, 2007). 5. The trial of R v Anthony Jones commenced when the bailiff ordered the court to maintain silence and then Justice G Barr entered the courtroom. The associate judge then stated the charges which Anthony Jones was accused of. The accused pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm. However, he pleaded not guilty for murder and exceptional brutality causing bodily harm. The bailiff was then instructed by the judge to bring the probable jurors into the courtroom as he escorted the judge out of the courtroom. The jurors were then escorted to the courtroom by the bailiff and they sat in the public gallery as they awaited their names to be called out by the bailiff. The associate judge then randomly read the numbers and the corresponding names of the jurors and the defense solicitor called out ‘challenge’ for a few number of times as the jurors made their way to the bailiff. The bailiff then escorted the judge back to the court after the selection of the 12 jurors. The judge then informed the jury about their role in the court and asked them if they knew anyone who knows the accused or the witnesses. None of the jury answered and so the judge proceeded on and informed them the charges that the accused was charged with. The opening statement of the trial was made by the prosecutor who then informed the jury about the evidence that would be presented. The judge and the jury were then escorted out of the courtroom. The court session was then resumed and the defense solicitor made admissions in relation to the evidence that was presented by the prosecutor. The first witness arrived inside the courtroom and was sworn by the bailiff. The witness was then questioned about the events that pertained to the case by the prosecutor for about 30 minutes. The defense solicitor then questioned the witness for about 30 minutes and then the court proceedings were postponed. 6. The most interesting thing that I observed in my visit to the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Sydney was how the events were coordinated in the courtroom. To me it was a surprise considering how the court was required to undertake so many activities at the same time. Efficient coordination of activities ensures that courts operate smoothly and no delays are encountered (Russell, 2007). To me it was interesting how the bailiff coordinated the activities in the courtroom. I also found it interesting how the bailiff escorted the judge to and out of the courtroom. 7. It was easy to understand what was happening in the court room because of how the activities were coordinated in an orderly manner. Each session in the proceedings began with an introduction and this made it easy for me to understand what was happening. Moreover, the language that was used in the courtroom was simple and easy to understand. According to Findlay, Odgers and Yeo (2009) language can create confusion in the courtroom. 8. I think a defendant, a member of the jury and a victim of crime would easily understand the court process that I observed. The court proceedings were conducted in an orderly manner and this can assist to eliminate confusion. According to Shulman (2009) order facilitates easier understanding on how the court operates as well as how proceedings progress in the court. The defendants can easily understand the proceedings in the court by enquiring from their solicitor and this can enable them to recognize how the trial will be conducted. On the other hand, the victim of a crime can acquire information from the prosecutor regarding the trial. However, I realized that witness rarely consult the prosecutor in matters relating to the trial proceedings. This was evident in the case as the first witness seemed confused and this made the court to waste a lot of time in directing him and explaining to him what he was supposed to do. According to the Supreme Court of New South Wales (2012) the jury members are informed about their responsibilities and duties and this can equip them with information about the court process. 9. The courtroom experience enabled me to enhance my prior understanding relating to the different categories of crime and charges that are filed against the accused. In addition I was able to learn that the circumstances leading to murder are considered in the case in order to determine the magnitude of the charges. The accused was charged with aggravating circumstances and this motivated me to go and research more about the issues that are considered for a murder case to be considered as committed under aggravated circumstances. These factors include murder of pregnant woman, murder of police officer or murder of a witness. References Estalada, C.(2009). Legal Systems and Procedures. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Findlay, M., Odgers, S., & Yeo, S.(2009). Australian Criminal Justice(4th edn.). Victoria: Oxford University Press Australia and New Zealand. Hartman, G., Mersky, R., & Tate, C.(2009). Landmark Supreme Court Cases. New York: Facts on File. Hall, K., Ely, J., & Grossman, G.(2005). The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. May, D., Minor, K., & Riuddell, R.(2007). Criminal Justice System. Burlington: Jones &Barnett. Moller, M., Levy, R., &Lynch, T.(2006). Review of the Supreme Court. London: Rand Corp. Russel, P.(2007). Trials: Two Tiers or One. Victoria: Oxford University Press. Ramen, F.(2009). Legal Procedures. Mason: Cengage Learning. Russel, W.(2007). Principles of Law. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Shulman, M.(2009). The Court. New York: Marshall Cavendish. Slapper, G., & Kelly, D.(2011). The English Legal System. London: Taylor & Francis. Supreme Court of New South Wales.(2012). About Supreme Court of NSW. Retrieved Octomber 8, 2012, from http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc. Read More