Observing Court Proceedings - Assignment Example

Name Court report Course Date Court report Section one Question 1 In the Australian legal system there are different courts that are set up to deal with matters that arise from the state and federal laws. It is based on a hierarchy according to the nature of the matter. The position of each court in the court hierarchy determines the type of a case that it is going to handle. I attended a Paramatta Local Court. It is the lowest ranked court hierarchy in Queensland below the Supreme Court of Queensland District and the Court of Queensland. This is the court where most civil cases and all criminal matters are initiated where in a situation where the matter is serious according to the evidence it is sent to the District and Supreme Courts. In the Magistrates Court of Queensland, a magistrate makes all decisions and judgments. Question 2 Normally, for persons who do not have legal representation the court would intervene to offer help. From what I observed, the court staff is there to offer help in their best way possible. However, the advice that they offered was not legal nor did they give direction on what one was required to do. In addition to this, there is a court registry where there is material that one can read and get some guidance on what is required of him or her. The most notable thing was that the magistrate did speak about a case unless it was being heard in presence of all the parties. This is because the magistrate is supposed to be impartial. However, a person who did not have legal representation was allowed to seek the guidance of the magistrate. Section two Introduction The main subject of this question is to observe what happens during a court proceeding in general in as far as legal justice procedures are concerned. During the court proceedings, there are certain procedures that are followed in as far as presentation of evidence and adherence to the rules of natural justice are concerned. First all the matters of that day are read out and parties asked if they are present so as to ensure that there is no confusion as the matters are dealt with. Equally important to note is that this is done so as to ensure that all parties are present when their respective matters are being dealt with. This is done so as to ensure that justice is served as natural justice demands that a party to a case knows what he or she is facing and ensure that he or she is also heard. Literature review According to Mack (2007)1, presence during hearing ensures that the parties get to hear and at the same time present their side of the story and therefore a question that was raised during the proceedings was whether the parties to the case were present. Normally, a verdict should not be made when a party has not been awarded the chance to present his side of the story since this would be injustice and unfairness towards him. Another notable concern was that the facts of the case were read out to both parties in a language that all parties understood. This is normally done so as to ensure that the parties are aware of what they are facing. The defendant will get the chance to know what he is accused of and the kind of defense to prepare. A party has the right to know what he or she is accused of as natural justice requires. This was decided in the case of Re Neil (2010).2 Similarly the parties were asked to confirm whether they understood what has been read to them in as far as the case is concerned. This concern is similar to the one above that the parties should be very much aware of what they were facing as per natural justice that they are fully furnished with all the details of the case3. One of the parties raised a concern that had not been awarded enough time to present their witnesses and evidence during the court proceedings and therefore requested for more time. Evidence and testimony from the witnesses is what guides a court in making its decision. The weight of the evidence according to Rice (2009)4 is what persuades the court to make a decision in favour of one party over the other hence the need for enough and reasonable time to present it. Another very explicit concern that came up was whereby the magistrate rebuffed some evidence from the claimant. During presentation of evidence, there are certain rules that are set out to ensure that court procedures and legal procedures are adhered to. There are certain limits that are set out in terms of time for presentation of evidence. Each piece of evidence should be produced during its stipulated time as provided for in the Australian Evidence Act5. Observations During my attendance in the Paramatta local court, there were various cases that took place. The first case was a criminal case involving sexual assault. In this case, Joseph Hannah a hair dresser was accused of sexually assaulting a woman. It was alleged that he did this to a woman customer who had come for hair dressing. Hannah reportedly removed the customer’s top and bra then started massaging her breasts and afterwards forcefully put his tongue into her mouth. During presentation of evidence, some four more ladies came forward claiming that the accused had previously assaulted them sexually. This led to the magistrate, Lisa Stapleton to find that the prosecution had a strong case against the accused since the evidence had a lot of weight. Further, the magistrate ruled that the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused’s lawyer told the court that some of the evidence appeared to be sketchy but the magistrate was not convinced which part and how sketchy it was. The outcome of the case was that Joseph Hannah was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to 7 years in prison. The second case was a criminal court that involved a 38 year old. Cahill J. was had been charged with reckless wounding a woman in Sidney’s southwest. The Victim who had a knife wound on the stomach was able to identify the accused who argued that there was no enough evidence to implicate him. However, the magistrate ruled that he had been satisfied by the evidence of the prosecution since it was beyond reasonable doubt, the threshold for a criminal case to be confirmed. The magistrate, Lisa Stapleton, rebuffed some of the evidence presented by Cahill. He was however, given some more time to present his evidence. The third case of the day involved a man who was charged with fraud. The court heard that he had conned people a total of $32,910 promising to cut trees and carry out garden maintenance but did not. However, the accused, Douglas Robert, aged 59 pleaded guilty and was found guilty of fraud. He was ordered to pay the amount to the victims or face a 2 year jail term. Evaluation Even as the magistrate gave extra time to Cahill to present his evidence, he stressed that time was of the essence in as far as presentation of the evidence is concerned. This is because the magistrate had to allow that the defendant gets a fair hearing that is supposed to be neither too fast nor too slow before he could give a verdict. The first thing that happened before a matter began, parties were supposed to be present. According to natural justice, a party has to know what he or she is being accused of. Equally, the party should be given time to speak and present his side of the story. One cannot be sentenced without having being presented with the chance to be listened to. In the 2009 Supreme Court of Queensland case of Re Queensland Attorney General; 6 Justice Gleeson clarified the concept of natural justice and when it ought to come into play. He emphasized that the rules of natural justice will apply when a verdict is being made that will have an impact on the status, interests, rights or reasonable anticipations of a reasonable person. The reasonable anticipation is that of ownership or entitlement to certain ownership being tampered with or even removed having not been presented with a chance to have his or her case being heard by the person making the decision. This explains why the court confirmed whether all the parties were present in the courtroom when the case was going on. The rules of natural justice overshadow any statute since it is the foundation of all laws. Necessities of procedural fairness will over and over again go past the actual desires of a statute. In as far as allocation of time is concerned, each party was given reasonable time to present his part of the story. This also touches on the rules of natural justice that can be summarized as “fairness and detachment”, meaning that it is necessary for a person to be given reasonable time to present his case before an impartial decision maker. Justice Gleeson7 observed what the basic rules of natural justice are. He noted that whatever verdict is given should be based on the evidence provided regardless of the fact that whether there is a hearing or not; in case there is a hearing, all the parties concerned should be given a chance to attend it and make their submissions and that the rules of natural justice should come into play both to the proceedings and the material on which the verdict is based. Another observation from the court session was that the magistrate rejected part of the evidence presented before the court presented by Cahill. The explanation behind this can be explained by one of the rules of natural justice which is detachment. Detachment requires that there be no justice whatsoever on the part of the judge. The evidence that was rejected was regarded as being inadmissible whereby if it was accepted, then there would have been bias on the part of the magistrate. Therefore, the fact that the magistrate accepted evidence of one party and rejected part of the other did not amount to bias. In a case as this, the issue that comes into play is one of procedural fairness. It is mainly concerned with the procedure used by a person making a decision rather than what the verdict of the case will be. It requires that the fairest procedure be used when the person making a decision is making a verdict according to the Ombudsman in Western Australia8. The magistrate had a procedure that he followed which in this case is procedural fairness. What explicitly came out from this case was that procedural fairness was used in unique circumstances. These circumstances were where a party’s existing rights and interests were going to be affected. The defendant had some legitimate expectation that procedural fairness came about to protect as well as his rights. This term is mostly used in administrative decision making since it is used in conjunction with natural justice in courts of law. However, it is critical to note that there are some very rare occasions where the obligation to afford procedural fairness is explicitly excluded by an Act of Parliament. A good example is that of Section 115 of the Sentence Administration Act 20039. These rules of procedural fairness demand that there be lack of bias by the decision maker, presence of evidence to support the decision maker’s verdict, proper enquiry as per the conditions of the case and an investigation into the details of the matter. Another notable thing from the case was that claimant/plaintiffs were given the first opportunity to give their side of the story. This would consequently provide the defendant with the chance to reply as he deemed fit. Similarly, it would provide him with the chance to have his response heard and received by the magistrate before a verdict would be made. These are the rights that arise as a result of procedural fairness according to the Ombudsman in Western Australia10. As a result of this, there are certain things that the party may be entitled to in his or her reply. One may make available evidence that he or she considers to have it possible to refute the accusations, give reasons that would justify the accusations, deny the accusations, give an innocent explanation or even give facts of a particular occasion that has exceptional circumstances that one strongly believes should be considered. All these explain why the defendant was given the chance to present his case after the claimant had presented his. Further, the magistrate explained his reasons for rejecting the evidence in the case of Cahill. He explained that the evidence was not admissible due to the fact that it had been presented later than the litigation procedure requires. This brings about the issue of admissibility of evidence. A critical examination of this shows that there are certain time limits that are set out for production of certain evidence according to the Australian Evidence Act 192911. The Act12 also provides certain standards that a fact must be proved. Facts in criminal proceedings ought to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is what the magistrate stated when giving his verdict in the case of Cahill and that of Joseph Hannah. However, in the case of fraud, the magistrate noted that facts need be proved on a balance of probabilities since it is a civil case. In both cases of Hannah and Cahill, the magistrate further stated that he had arrived at the decision since the party that worn the case knew how to correctly adduce the evidence on the fact, that the evidence was admissible hence allowing the court to permit it to be presented and that the weight behind that evidence was enough to convince the court. However, in the fraud case, the defendant had pleaded guilty. Normally, these are the rules of evidence that the court considers according to Rice (2009)13. However, these rules of evidence should be used hand in hand with natural justice. Conclusion The main objective of this exercise was to consider and determine the use of procedure and procedural law during a case in a court of law. From the kickoff of the hearing when the names of the parties were called out to the point of the final verdict, there was adherence to two major things. These are adherence to the rules of natural justice and adherence to the rules of evidence. The parties were awarded a fair and just trial as per the rules of natural justice. They were present during the trial and were given an opportunity to present their side of the story. Further, the magistrate ensured that they were aware of the facts of the case and clarified anything that seemed problematic to them. Afterwards, the magistrate considered the evidence presented by the parties. In doing this, he was guided by the rules of evidence as per the Australian Evidence Act14. In summary, it is in order to state that a court trial is guided by the rules of evidence and the rules of natural justice. Bibliography Mack, K. & Roach- Anleu, S, (2007) ‘ “Getting through the list”: Judge craft and legitimacy in the lower courts, Social and Legal Studies,Vol.16, pp.341-61 Carlen, P (1976), ‘Magistrates’ Justice’A Criminological Imagination, Farnham: Ashgate Briskman, L & Libesman, T, 2009, 'Social work practice and Indigenous Australians', in P Swain & S Rice (eds), In the shadow of the law: the legal context of social work practice, 3rd edn, Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press. Gray, A., S. Forrell & Clarke, S. (2009) ‘Cognitive impairment, legal need and access to justice’, Justice Issues, Paper 10 Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales. McBarnet, D (1981) Conviction: Law, the state and the construction of justice, London: Macmillan. Parliament of Australia, Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee (2004) Inquiry into Legal Aid and Access to Justice This report has many relevant chapters including the following (Chapter 10: ‘ Self-Represented Litigants’), (Chapter 5: Indigenous Legal Services) Chapter 8 Other Groups with Particular Needs)and Chapter 4 Women and Family Law). Roach- Anleu S., Mack, K. (2007) ‘Magistrates, Magistrates Courts and Social Change’, Law and Policy vol. 29, no.2 pp. 183-209 Tait, D (1999) ‘Boundaries and Barriers: The Social Production of Space in Magistrates Courts and Guardianship Tribunals Journal of Social Change and Critical Inquiry, 1. Taivolt, D (2003) ‘The Ritual Environment of the Mental Health Tribunal Hearing: Inquires and reflections’, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol.10 pp 91-96 Vanny, K. A., Levy, M. H., Greenberg D. M &. Hayes, S.C (2009) ‘Mental Illness and Intellectual Disability in Courts’, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research vol. 53 Magistrates Court of Queensland visit www.courts.qld.gov.au. Cases Ex parte (2009) HCA 27 Re Queensland Attorney General Ex parte (2009) HCA 27 Ombudsman in Western Australia May 2009 HCA 42 by the District Court of Queensland Legislations Section 115 of the Sentence Administration Act 2003 Australian Evidence Act 1929 Read More