Overview of Legal System in Australia
This content covers various aspects of the legal system in Australia, including common law, sources of law, court hierarchy, appeals process, federal courts, and the importance of judicial independence. It outlines the key components of the legal framework, such as the role of Parliament, judge-made laws, separation of powers, and the hierarchy of courts in Tasmania. The content further delves into the appeals process in Tasmania and the jurisdiction of federal courts in handling matters such as trade practices, taxation, family law, and more. Lastly, it emphasizes the significance of judicial independence in ensuring fair trials, limiting government power, and upholding the rule of law.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
COMMON LAW Legal Studies 3C
Sources of law in Australia Common law Parliament Judge-made law Courts Statute law or Acts of Parliament Statutory interpretation
Independence of the judiciary Executive Doctrine of Separation of Powers Legislative Judiciary
Court Hierarchy Tasmania High Court of Australia (Original or appellate jurisdiction) Full Court of the Supreme Court (Appellate jurisdiction) Court of Criminal Appeal (Appellate jurisdiction) Civil law Criminal law Supreme Court (Original jurisdiction) Court of Petty Sessions Civil division Magistrates Court Coronial Division Youth Justice Division
Appeals in Tasmania Appeals Matters heard in the Magistrates Courts and Tribunals can be appealed to the Supreme Court where they will be heard by a single judge. These are called Lower Court Appeals. Lower Court Appeal decisions can be appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania (for civil cases) and the Court of Criminal Appeal (for criminal cases). These appeals are heard by three judges of the Supreme Court. Appeal cases from both the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Full Court can then be appealed to the High Court. The High Court's decision is final and no further appeal can be made. http://www.courts.tas.gov.au/about_us/organisation
Federal Courts Federal Courts High Court Federal Court (original jurisdiction) Trade Practices Corporate Law Taxation Immigration Native Title Family Court (original jurisdiction) Divorce Marriage Bankruptcy Children (parenting disputes) Property High Court (1 Justice) Original jurisdiction Federal Law matters Full Court of the High Court (no less than 2 Justices) Original jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction (Federal, Family, High Courts) Full Court of Federal Court (appellate jurisdiction) Full Court of Family Court (appellate jurisdiction) Full Bench of the High Court (5 7 Justices). Original jurisdiction - Interpretation of the Constitution Appellate jurisdiction Appeal to High Court
Independence of the judiciary Why is this important? Ensures fair and impartial trial for all citizens (judge is an impartial umpire) - natural justice Ensures governments do not exceed their power and that governments are subject to the rule of law (check on executive power). Interpret the Constitution and legislation (statutory interpretation) Create legal principles to resolve disputes (when the issue has not been legislated on)
Role of the courts Settle disputes that arise in the community, therefore apply existing laws to the facts in cases that come before them. Common law when a legal principle is established by a court due to limited statute law from parliament in an area of law. This includes when a new issue is brought before the court in a case or when a previous principle of law requires expansion to apply to a new situation. Statutory Interpretation interpreting the meaning of the words in an act of parliament when applying them to a case the court is hearing.
When can judges make law If a case is brought before a superior court If there is no previous binding decision in a higher court in the same hierarchy that must be followed by the lower courts.
Doctrine of Precedent When a court makes a decision in a case that is the first of its kind, the court is said to be setting a precedent. A precedent is the reasoning behind a court decision that establishes a principle or rule of law that must be followed by other courts lower in the same court hierarchy when deciding future cases that are similar. This creates consistency and predictability The process of judges following the reasons for the decisions of higher courts is at the heart of the doctrine of precedent. Precedent example - handout
Doctrine of Precedent Stare decisis another way of describing the process of lower courts following the reasons for the decisions of higher courts. Means to stand by what has been decided .
Doctrine of Precedent Reason for the decision = ratio decidendi Ratio decidendi is the binding part of the judgement the reason for the decision which is then regarded as a statement of law to be followed in the future. Read page 230 233 (blue), Page 221 223 (red) Read the following cases: Pinkstone v R Shaddock v Parramatta Q1: What was the ratio decidendi in both cases (what was the precedent set)? Q2: What was the decision and penalty in both cases?
Doctrine of Precedent Binding precedent For the precedent to be binding, it must be: From the same hierarchy of courts From a superior court (higher in the hierarchy) To be considered binding on a new case: The main facts of the precedent are similar to the main facts of the new case The precedent was set in a higher court in the same hierarchy as the new case. Example: Pinkstone v R (2004) binding precedent on similar case Example: precedent set in the High Court the ratio decidendi is binding on lower courts in the court hierarchy
Doctrine of Precedent Persuasive precedent A precedent that is not binding on the courts however as they are seen to be noteworthy and highly regarded propositions of law they may be considered by some courts as influential on their decisions. Includes: From courts in another hierarchy (other state or country) From courts on the same level of hierarchy (which are not binding) From inferior courts (courts lower in the court hierarchy)
Doctrine of Precedent Read page Page 223 226 (red) Read the following cases: Example: Donoghue v Stevenson Example: Grant v Australia Knitting Mills Q1: What aspect of Donoghue v Stevenson (UK 1932) was used as persuasive precedent in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)?
Persuasive precedent comparison Donoghue v Stevenson Grant v Australia Knitting Mills A consumer purchased goods A consumer purchased goods Mrs Donoghue did not have a contract with the manufacturer Mr Grant did not have a contract with the manufacturer There was a snail in the bottle Underwear contained chemical residues The bottle of ginger beer had been carelessly prepared The underwear had been carelessly prepared The ginger beer manufacturer could have reasonably foreseen that damage would result from the carelessness The underwear manufacturer could have reasonably foreseen that damage would result from the carelessness. Mrs Donoghue was closely and directly affected by the actions of the manufacturer Mr Grant was closely and directly affected by the actions of the manufacturer Mrs Donoghue suffered gastroenteritis and shock Mr Grant suffered dermatitis
Doctrine of Precedent Obiter dictum Things said by the way Sometimes a judge will make a statement that is not part of the reason (ratio decidendi) for the decision, but is an important statement relating to the main issue of the case. This statement is known as obiter dictum, and can influence decisions in the future (persuasive precedent) Example: Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd (page 227 textbook Read the Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd case (1964) Look back at the case study Shaddock v. Parramatta City Council and answer the following question: How did the Shaddock case follow the obiter dictum of the Hedley Byrne v. Heller case? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjPtEWzMRbA
Precedent - activities Activity You be the judge (precedent of Grant v Knitting Mills)
Precedent If a matter comes before a court the court must deal with it. In most cases there are well-established precedents but since unusual cases do come up for which there are no precedents, courts may develop new principles to accommodate new facts and in this way common law (sometimes called case law) evolves.
Precedent Judges are bound to follow a precedent even if they think it is inappropriate (e.g. out of step with current community attitudes). However, for precedent to work well it has to be flexible enough to meet changing circumstances.
Precedent Judges may not always have to follow a previous precedent and in some cases, may be free to create new precedents. Apart from following a binding precedent, there are four other ways that judges can treat previous decisions. Distinguishing, reversing, overruling and disapproving.
Learning activities Read page. Explain how a precedent may be distinguished. Use the case of Davies v. Waldron to illustrate the points made. 1. 2. What is the difference between reversing and overruling? What occurs when a court disapproves a previous decision? How did the judge disapprove the existing common law in the Trigwell case? 3.
Case 1 Judge Jenny in the Magistrates Court appears to be bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court regarding the case before her. She is unhappy with the precedent and feels the facts of the current case may be slightly different.
Case 2 Judge Bob in the Magistrates Court appears to be bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court regarding the case before him. He is unhappy with the precedent, and the facts of the current case are exactly the same as those when the precedent was set.
Case 3 Judge Samantha in the Supreme Court is hearing a case that has facts almost identical to a case that had previously been heard in the Magistrates Court. She knows she is not bound by this precedent.
Case 4 Judge Anne-Marie in the Criminal Court of Appeal is hearing a case that had previously been head in the Magistrates Court. A precedent was set on a point of law in the Magistrates Court which she is unhappy with.
Precedents Ways judges can develop precedent or avoid following an earlier decision Distinguishing a precedent court decides the main facts of new case are sufficiently different to previous case (where precedent was set) therefore precedent is not binding. Case: Davies v Waldron (1989)
Precedents Reversing a precedent (in the same case) on appeal, the higher court makes a different decision than a lower court in the same case therefore precedent set by superior court is binding. Case: Queen v Tomas Klamo (2008) (Blue = P240, Red = P231)
Precedents Overruling a precedent higher court decides not to follow an earlier precedent of a lower court in a different case. The higher court decision creates a new precedent. Case: Aon Risk Services Aust v Australian National University (2009) (Blue p241, Red p231)
Precedents Disapproving a precedent court expresses disapproval of previous precedent but is bound by it if in an inferior court. If previous decision has been made in a court at the same level in the court hierarchy, and the court disapproves of the earlier decision, present court is not bound to follow precedent. Case: State Government Insurance Co v Trigwell & Ors (1978)
Recap Common law Statutory interpretation
Statutory Interpretation Under our legal system the courts must apply laws created in the parliaments to particular cases brought before them. This requires judges in the courts to interpret the general meaning of relevant legislation, including the meaning of specific words within these Acts and statutes.
Statutory interpretation Even though all legislation has been carefully constructed by professional parliamentary draftspersons, there is often a need for statutory interpretation by a judge. This is because Acts are often written in general terms and lawyers in a case seek to argue that a section of an Act has a particular meaning.
Statutory interpretation Judges need to interpret legislation when: - It does not cover all situations or mention every possible scenario - Its intention is unclear - The meanings of its words are ambiguous - There is some inconsistency with other statutes - The meaning of the words has changed over time
Statutory interpretation When a judge interprets the meaning of a word, or words, in a statute, the reasoning behind this interpretation sets a precedent which other judges who are required to interpret the meaning of those words in the same act will then follow in the future. The new precedent then becomes part of the law along with the statute. The judges can therefore be said to be law-making by adding to existing law and clarifying what the law is.
Task Read 242-245 Explain the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic materials that may be used by courts when interpreting acts of parliament. Read the case study Bread or biscuit? and answer the following questions: Why is it important to know whether ciabatta is bread or a biscuit? a) In your opinion, is this bread or a biscuit? Do you agree with the decision in the case? Discuss. b)
