The Aspect of Court Proceedings Relating to Summary Proceedings - Case Study Example

Court Questionnaire 1. What Court did you attend? Date? Melbourne Magistrate Court on 15/09/2014. 2. Where does this court fit in the court hierarchy? Magistrate’s court in the Victoria’s court hierarchy 3. Was there a “dock” for defendants? Where did the defendants stand in court? There was a dock for defendants 4. Identify and write ONE short sentence describing a particular characteristic which helped you to identify who they were. a) Magistrate The magistrate sat in front side of the court and addressed as ‘your honor’. He is the one who listened to both parties and gave a ruling on each case. b) Police Prosecutor She was the one who read the charges pressed on the defendants and questioned respective witnesses involved. c) Defence lawyers He cross-examined the witnesses presented against the defendants, and also questioned those he presented in support of the defendant. d) Defendants They sat at the dock and made their respective pleas. They also looked distressed and uncomfortable about their cases. 5. Was there a Domestic Violence service at the court? Yes. if so, give the name? Was there a “safe room” for women? Mary Clarke. There was a safe room for women. 6. Were interpreters used in any of the cases you saw? What languages? No. 7. Was there a clearly marked room for Legal Aid? Yes. 8. How many unrepresented defendants were there? None. All were represented. 9. How many matters (cases) did you see? Two cases. 10.If you saw a sentence matter did the magistrate have a social background report? (Presentence reports are prepared by Probation Officers) or a psychological or psychiatric report Describe in ONE short sentence. There was a case on assault offence where the defendant was acquitted on grounds that he was mentally unstable. This was evidenced by the psychiatric report presented to the magistrate. 11. Give short details in 3 matters regarding: (a) Type of case – eg driving offence, assault (b) Stage of proceedings, eg first appearance, plea, sentence, bail. (c) Sentence (if applicable) 1. The first case was on a traffic offence involved a driver who caused an accident while driving under influence of alcohol. The case was on the first appearance stage; hence no sentence was given. 2. Second case was an assault offence involving a man on a lady. The case was on the sentence stage, and the defendant was acquitted on grounds of his unstable mental status. Court Report Introduction In this case, the paper focuses on the aspect of court proceedings relating to summary proceedings. This entails the proceedings of less serious kind that are presided over by a magistrate. Some of the cases heard under this aspect include minor assaults, traffic offences, offensive behavior, and property damage. Some summary proceedings may be handled in the absence of the accused person, as long as the magistrate approves of it. These hearings are known as ex parte. This aspect is also important as it seeks to solve less serious cases in the society and provide sufficient justice to each matter. This is also important in ensuring that the law and order is maintained in the everyday life, for instance, by ensuring that people abide by the traffic laws and respect one another as stated by the governing laws. Summary proceedings are also necessary because they evolve around a society’s day-to-day life. In the process of going about their normal routines, citizens may willingly or unwillingly disobey the set laws; hence the need for justice. Literature review Criminal justice refers to the system of institutions and practices of governments that are aimed at ensuring social control, preventing and mitigating crime, or sanctioning those individuals that break laws with rehabilitation efforts and criminal penalties. The accused individuals are protected against prosecution and investigatory powers (McBarnet, 1981). A criminal justice system is among the features of the present life that almost everyone dislikes. Liberal reformers dislike criminal justice systems since they believe they have turned to be too punitive and the numerous injustices the systems perpetrate. On the other hand conservatives hate criminal justice systems because they tend to focus on the defendants’ rights and are inadequate on those convicted. Bureaucrats also hate these systems on grounds that they are hard to control. Treasury officials dislike the systems based on high costs involved and difficulty in measuring their performance. Certainly, criminal justice systems are too expensive to maintain. For instance, in Australia, courts handle over 860,000 criminal cases annually at a cost of $414 million per year. It also costs about $1.5 billion every year to administer orders and sanctions that the courts impose. On a particular day, there are about 22,000 people in Australian prisons and around 52,000 on certain forms of community corrections order. One of the main objectives of the criminal justice system is to prevent and mitigate crime. It is also seeks to ensure that the people accused of criminal offences are handled fairly as per the law. Numerous rules and procedures exist to ensure that this happens, and if this is addressed well, it would reduce crime. According to Daly (2012), a critical issue emerging in relation to the criminal justice system concerns the sanctions’ effectiveness in reinforcing public opinion. There are three forms in which sanctions may be imposed by courts on criminal offenders in order to control crime. To begin with, because they openly express community condemnation of criminal conduct, they might help to reinforce social norms against undesirable behavior. Secondly, those offenders who are not affected by such disapproval can nonetheless be barred from offending, either due to punishment (specific deterrence) or by seeing what causes others to offend (general deterrence). Thirdly, when a sanction entails imprisonment, it could protect the community through separating the offender and the public for a given period of time. It is hard to establish the importance of court sanctions in really strengthening and reinforcing social standards regarding criminal behavior. Studies of the public aimed at determining factors affecting compliance with law indicate that many people are prevented from breaking laws not because of the apprehension threats and charges, but because of moral beliefs. In fact, personal morality seems the most vital thing in enhancing compliance with law rather than law’s apparent legitimacy, fear of court sanctions or social disapproval. Another issue regards the effectiveness of punishment on deterring offenders. For ordinary citizens, punishment is meant for deterrence and not for social norms. Most of them unknowingly believe in the Bacarria’s standpoint that if the expense of crime exceeds its benefits, people will not find any importance in offending. In such a case, it is worth noting to consider two distinctions (Brown et al., 2011). Firstly, is the difference between specific and general deterrence. Specific deterrence relates to the result of punishment on the offender’s tendency to reoffend, while general deterrence refers to result of punishment on people’s tendency to offend. The second distinction exists between absolute and marginal deterrence. Absolute deterrence concerns the difference between the frequencies of an offence when a sanction severity is low, while marginal deterrence relates to the extra deterrent result when an offence’s severity is increased. Another vital issue on criminal justice is on the efficacy of a prison to deter offenders. Various studies indicate considerably little positive effect of prison in combating offence (Roach-Anleu, Mack, 2007; Anderson & Heath, 2010). Observation and evaluation The visit to the court was worthwhile in various ways. To start with, the court I attended falls under the magistrate court of Victoria state in Australia. The court was presided over by Chief Magistrate, and it is the lowest court in the hierarchy of courts in Victoria. Besides, it is worth noting that the court determines almost 90% of the total cases presented. The court also addresses both civil and criminal matters. Nevertheless, the court has no juries, as every case is determined by one magistrate. It was also clear that the court handles various types of proceedings including summary proceedings and indictable proceedings. Besides, the magistrate’s court presides over committal hearings relating to serious indictable matters that should be eventually decided in the supreme or county courts (Hall, 2010). Another crucial finding in the court was that it is instrumental in hearing and determining various traffic offences that range from exceeding of speed limit, parking violations to driving matters. It also conducts hearings on applications for license suitability orders for individuals who have been barred from obtaining license due to drug or drink driving offences. Further, the court conducts hearings on applications for decrease in time taken between evaluations and application. In terms of fines, I discovered that the court may order a fine whenever the accused is found guilty in a proceeding. A registrar helps in determining available options of paying court fines (Vanny et al., 2009). The court’s physical layout consists of a witness box, bar table where the parties involved sit, and public gallery. It also comprises of a raised bench designed for a sitting magistrate, as well as a clerk. The court also had a dock, where the defendants were housed. I also noticed a video link facility, which is useful for remote witnesses who sometimes choose to appear through video conference. The facility is also appropriate for the kind of witnesses that are unable to travel, or whenever a prisoner is perceived as risky to appear in court (Tait, 1999). Another important finding in the Magistrate’s court in Victoria was the presence of a number of parties. To start with, the magistrate was seated at the raised bench in front of the courtroom. The magistrate was a tall male Australian who walked into the courtroom with such a demeanor befitting a court judge. He was modestly dressed and seemed to have a lot of authority and patience from his speech. Although he seemed very strict, he paid keen attention to everyone who was given a chance to speak, a character which I found to be commendable for such a responsibility. Everyone in court addressed him as ‘Your Honor’. Each case that was mentioned, I saw witnesses at the witness box, who also seemed composed except for a few times when the cross-examination got heightened. Throughout the session, the witnesses behaved well as per the court regulations, and that none was reproved for misconduct. There were also defendants at the dock. A close look at them revealed that most were distressed, probably due to the matter at hand, or the discomfort of appearing in court. Nonetheless, others seemed calm and collected, maybe because they were familiar with the whole process. The prosecution police was female with a harsh voice. She spoke so confidently that the defendants’ felt very threatened. She played her roles well in reading out the cases before the court, and in questioning the defendants and witnesses. On contrast, the defense lawyer was a male who appeared so eloquent and calm. I enjoyed the cross-examination session as the lawyers tried to represent their clients sufficiently. In addition, the court had a bench clerk who seemed busy taking notes and guiding the parties on what to do. He was responsible for court’s administration including calling witnesses, announcing cases, oath administration, and preparation of court orders. The visit also established that the Victorian Magistrate court has a domestic violence service and a safe room for women. This is necessary in protecting people who have faced domestic violence, abusive behavior or threats. The service was placed there to offer protection to the individuals from family members that act violently at them (Tait, 2003). Since everyone in court understood English, there was no need for interpreters in the cases I attended. Normally, interpreters are available just in case there is anyone who does not understand English. As well, the court had a clearly marked room for Legal Aid. I sought to find out the significance of such a room and established that there was a duty solicitor whose role was to offer legal advice and sometimes present the defendants case in court, especially those who are unrepresented (Parliament of Australia, Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee, 2004). On that day, I saw two cases, one on traffic and another on assault. The sentence matter dealt with that day was on assault and the magistrate had a social background report of the defendant. The report indicated that the defendant was mentally unfit; hence the offence may have not been intended or committed unconsciously. In the case of assault offense, the case was in the sentence stage of the court proceedings. Because of the mental condition of the accused read from the psychiatric report, the magistrate decided that the accused was not guilty because he committed the crime unconsciously. On contrast, the other case on traffic offense was on the first appearance stage of the court proceedings Evaluation: Interpret your data in relation to your question. Generally, the criminal justice established in the courtroom that day was good. The cases witnessed included one on traffic offence and another on assault. The latter case on the sentence stage, and the judge ruled that the accused was not guilty of the crime. This was established based on the psychiatric report presented to the court and the sitting magistrate. From such a development, I found that justice was done since the assailant was not in his normal state of mind when committed the crime. The presence of the psychiatric report in this case is one of the measures of a good justice because it supports the defendants prove of innocence as well as the magistrate’s ruling. This is also significant in ensuring that the innocent person is acquitted and recommended for further medical help to avoid a repeat of the incident (Gray, Forrell & Clarke, 2009). On the other, the other case was on a traffic offence but it was on the first appearance stage. The defendant pleaded not guilty and some witnesses were brought forward by both the prosecution and defense parties. Therefore, being the first appearance, the judge could not make any ruling on the case. However, justice was done because each party was given an equal opportunity to speak in the courtroom. All the defendants were also represented in court to ensure that none lacked a legal representation (Carlen, 1976). Conclusion Without doubt, the court session was one of the best experiences I have had in a courtroom. I enjoyed the whole process and gained a lot of knowledge on court proceedings and criminal justice. The courtroom was well organized and spacious enough to carry a large capacity of the audience. Everything was in place including the dock, magistrate’s seat, court clerk bench and witness box. It also had legal aid office, domestic violence service and a safe place for female victims. All the defendants in the two cases I witnessed were represented. The traffic case was in its first appearance stage whereas the assault case was in the sentence stage. Generally, justice was served as per the magistrate’s ruling because of the sufficient evidence, witnesses, and equal chance of hearing for each party. References Anderson, J & Heath, M 2010, Criminal law guidebook: New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Brown et al 2011, Criminal Laws: Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process in New South Wales, (5th edition, Federation Press, 2011), pp. 142-166 Carlen, P, 1976, ‘Magistrates’ Justice’, in Carlen, P. (2010) A Criminological Imagination Farnham: Ashgate. Daly, K 2012, The aims of the criminal justice system’ in Malmo, de Lint and Palmer (2012) Crime and justice: A guide to criminology 4th edition, Law Book Company Gray, AS, Forrell, S & Clarke, S 2009, Cognitive impairment, legal need and access to justice. Justice Issues, Paper 10 Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales Hall, M 2010, Key themes in New South Wales criminal justice. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 19-43. 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 McBarnet, D 1981, Conviction: Law, the state and the construction of justice London, Macmillan (on reserve) 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) 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. Tait, D 2003, The Ritual Environment of the Mental Health Tribunal Hearing: Inquires and reflections. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol.10 pp. 91-96 Vanny, KA, Levy, MH, Greenberg DM & Hayes, SC 2009, Mental Illness and Intellectual Disability in Courts. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, vol. 5 Read More