The Victorian Court System and Legal Framework

undefined
 
The scary court bit!
 
Background – definitions, terms
History and structure of the Victorian court
system
Court processes – who, where, what, how?
Worries, concerns, questions –experience?
 
Sets of rules governing units/societies
Social cohesion enhances survival of social groups
Law is an artificial construct
All people have an innate sense of right and wrong
BUT one person’s may be different to another’s
Law = set of rules that capture the social norm &
regulate individuals in society
Law = assessment against a set of rules NOT an
assessment of right and wrong
Everybody is equal and it should be hard to remove a
person’s liberty…….
 
Law is an artificial construct
All people have an innate sense of right and
wrong BUT one person’s may be different to
another’s
Law = set of rules that capture the social
norm & regulate individuals in society
Law = assessment against a set of rules NOT
an assessment of right and wrong
Everybody is equal and it should be hard to
remove a person’s liberty…….
 
Used in courts of law
Fit for legal argument
Relating to or denoting the application of
scientific methods and techniques to the
investigation of crime
 
Shared with the English
system
Transported here with the
convicts
“Terra Nullis” – “nothing
here” – indigenous
people’s systems not
recognised
 
Initially an extension of the King’s
jurisdiction – medieval England.
Matters heard by the King or
delegates
Kings decision; Judge made Law
(statute or Acts)
Development of precedent –
cases should be decided in the
same way as previous cases
The law is “found not made”
through argument and
persuasion
Basis of current criminal law
 
Adversarial – Australia, UK
Inquisitorial – European
Religious - Islamic countries
Customary/traditional – Koori courts
 
Each system consists of criminal (protection
of society – guilty or innocent) and civil law
(disputes between citizens, protection of an
individual – financial compensation)
 
Matters solved by trial by ordeal (criminal
cases) or trial by battle (non-criminal cases)
Trial by ordeal ended 1215, trial by battle
ended 1819
Development of local jury – decided who was
“telling the truth”
Trial by peers
 
INQUISITORIAL
 
Decider (magistrate/judge)
comes to a conclusion
Facts in one hand,
legislation in the other
Magistrate leads Ix
Any type of evidence
accepted
Judge according to “soul
and conscience” –
experience/intuition
 
ADVERSARIAL
 
Decider hears all the arguments –
each party calls witnesses
Decision made by lay jury
Strict rules of evidence
Police direct Ix and prepare brief
Prosecutor presents case on
behalf of the state – act fairly,
defence challenges
Must be beyond reasonable doubt
(criminal) or balance of probability
(civil)
 
In Australia criminal and civil systems are adversarial
Coroners courts, Royal commissions and tribunals use inquisitorial system
 
 
Court of appeal and trial court
Treason, murder, high level civil
 
Both original cases and appeals
Principal trial court
Indictable criminal cases except treason
 
 and murder/murder-related
Serious civil offences
 
> 90% of court matters
All summary and most indictable (not
 
robbery, rape, murder)
Civil matters up to $100,000
Family law and work injury
 
 
 
 
477 Little Lonsdale Street - also sit at magistrates court
CBD or country
Matters concerning children under 18 years
Appeals made to the supreme court
2 divisions; 
criminal 
and 
family
 
The 
Family Division 
hears:
applications relating to
the 
protection and
care
 of children and
young persons at risk
applications for
intervention orders
 
The 
Criminal Division
 hears:
matters relating to
criminal offending
 by
children and young
persons.
 
The 
Children's Koori Court
(Criminal Division) hears:
matters relating to
criminal offending by
Koori children/young
persons, other than
sexual offences.
undefined
 
 
What evidence is admissible, how it should be
heard
All relevant evidence is admissible in court
Example of adjectival law – the laws that
govern the way in which legal processes are
carried out
Underpins the adversarial system
 
 
Placed on prosecution
Any/reasonable doubt – not guilty
If defence have to prove a fact (rare) –
balance of probability
Not NO doubt
Must be hard to remove
liberty
 
Relevance
 – generally pertinent to the case
Admissibility 
– relevant to the facts and not excluded by a rule of
evidence (fairness), overly prejudicial with little probative
value…Judge decides…
Weight 
– degree of consideration that should be given to that
piece of evidence. Jury decides…
Judicial notice/Presumption 
 – accept facts without hearing
evidence “taken as read”, matters of common knowledge – eg
presumption of death
Burden of proof 
– carried by the prosecution
Standard of 
proof – balance of probability (civil) and beyond
reasonable doubt (criminal)
 
Same set of rules apply
If child is competent they are compellable
Must be competent to swear the oath
Not a matter of age but of understanding
Can give unsworn evidence but hard to
convict on that evidence
Unsworn evidence of one child cannot
corroborate unsworn evidence of another
 
Witnesses are the lifeblood of the courts
Who can give evidence?
Competence 
 legally capable
Compellability 
 can be compelled to give
evidence
Usually the same BUT with doctors they can
be competent to give evidence of
 
the facts
but may not be competent to give an opinion
about those facts 
 NOT legally competent
 
Lay person gives
evidence based on facts
Determined by their 5
senses
Story of what they have
said, done, heard
 
Expert is privileged
Draws inferences from
those facts
Can therefore give
opinions, interpretations
and draw conclusions
Based on qualifications or
training
No property in an expert
witness – either party
OPINION EVIDENCE
 
A field of specialised knowledge (identifiable
training, study or experience)
Opinion wholly/substantially based on witnesses
expert knowledge
Demonstration of scientific basis for opinion
Party calling must qualify before the courts –
“examination in chief”
Matter for court not jury – jury may decide weight
May require a voir-dire
Expertise limited in TIME and EXTENT
“R
e-accredited” each time
S
ub-specialising
 
To furnish judge with the necessary scientific
criteria for testing the accuracy of their
conclusions in order to enable the judge and
jury to form an opinion by the application of
these criteria to the facts proved in evidence
Opinion is admissible when it can furnish the
court with information likely to be outside the
experience or knowledge of the judge or jury
 
Overriding duty to assist the court
Not an advocate for either party
Duty to the court and not to the person
retaining them
Report must comply with standards set and
state compliance with the code of conduct
and agreement to be bound by it
undefined
 
 
Crime is a 
conduct
 for which defendant is
responsible
Conduct has mental elements (the
responsibility) as well as physical elements
(the conduct) = 
mens rea 
(state of mind) and
actus reus 
(act)
 
I charge that “Jack Hughes on the 2
nd
 day of March
at Sydney in the state of NSW, being then armed
with an offensive weapon, to wit, a knife, did rob
James Blake of certain money, to wit, $25”
The unlawful taking and carrying away of property of
some value
From the person of another
Against that person’s will
Either by force or putting the person in fear
With the intention of permanently depriving the person of
such property
Whilst armed with an offensive weapon
 
The legal process
Initial investigation
Case preparation
Court proceedings
Admissibility barrier
 
Evidence that may be taken into account in finding
the facts
Relevant to the facts of the case and not specifically
excluded by a rule of evidence
Evidence needs to pass this so that jury only hears
admissible or “acceptable” evidence
Collection, examination, analysis of evidence needs
to be rigorous to overcome admissibility barrier
For us - social information, features of examination,
DNA collection methods
….
 
Judge
 
– the boss, referee, summing up, sentencing,
admissibility (can exercise discretion). 
Matters of law
determined by the 
judge
 and 
questions of fact 
by the 
jury
.
Jury
 – selection can be challenged, can be directed to acquit
by judge, 12 members
Prosecutor 
– counsel for the plaintiff, presents relevant
evidence to establish elements of charge, act fairly, not
knowingly mislead
Defence 
– counsel for the respondent, needs to cast doubt
on an element of the charge. Need to demonstrate;
No case to answer
Errors in prosecution’s case
Discredit reliability of witnesses, attack credibility and truthfulness
 
 
 
A pre-trial process
After prosecution evidence is called
Magistrate decides whether the evidence is
capable of satisfying a jury beyond
reasonable doubt
If there is a reasonable prospect of conviction
then the accused is committed for trial
These can be tricky 
 no jury 
 no holds
barred
 
Read your subpoena/summons – ring if a diary clash
Subpoena (higher courts) - A written order commanding a person to
attend and/or produce documents within their possession
Summons (magistrates) - Document issued by a court requiring a person
to appear at a particular court either to give evidence or produce
documents
Read your notes and know your case (every word!)
If you find an error or inconsistency notify instructing solicitor
and the court at the beginning of examination-in-chief
1-2 weeks prior to court date ring re pre-court conference –
Director of Public Prosecutions
Sticky tabs on notes, visual aids, props, court bag
 
Find your courtroom and wait outside
Tipstaff will ask you to come in when they are
ready for you
As you walk in, stop and bow to the coat of
arms
Follow tipstaff to witness stand
Stand still and wait
Oath or affirmation
 
Listen carefully, ask permission to refer to
notes/show props
Examination-in-chief;
Qualify you as an expert
Elucidates facts/opinions in report, significance
and limitations of findings
Relates to the matters in dispute
Non-leading questions
If judge asks for clarification, try to re-word
 
Cross examination;
By defence counsel
Opinion, veracity and competency might be challenged
May offer alternative scenarios
Questions open or leading
Don’t stress/get riled. Answer openly, honestly and keep
calm
Accept alternative hypotheses if plausible, reject if not
Do not get angry, look frustrated or act uncooperatively or
as if defence counsel is an idiot
 
Don’t stonewall, there may be a good reason
for question
Can appeal directly to the judge/magistrate if
you have a problem
Address your answers either to the
judge/magistrate or to the jury
Pick one member and speak to them
If need to read a text/paper ask for time to do
that
 
PERSUASIVE
 
Prior field experience
Clarity of explanation
Impartiality
Fact familiarity
Educational qualifications
Prior forensic experience
Appearance and
publications
 
PROBLEMATIC
 
Expert bias
Complex expert language
and poor cross
examination
Expert exceeding expertise
and poor examination-in-
chief
Failure to prove opinion
bases
Expert non-responsive
 
“there are 2 ways to cross-examine, depending on the
witness and your mood. You either start off politely,
asking a series of questions to which the answer will
be “Yes” gaining the subject’s confidence and
agreement, leading him gently up the garden path to
a carefully planned booby trap, or you go in like an old
warship, with all guns blazing”
Rumpole of the Bailey
 
Don’t take it personally, everyone has a role to play
 
“Examining and cross-examining expert
witnesses is something that as advocates
many of us dread or dreaded”
Hon Mrs H Hallet DBE
 
You are not the one on trial!
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Delve into the history, structure, and processes of the Victorian court system, exploring the foundations of law and social cohesion. Discover the evolution of legal constructs, the application of scientific methods, and the diverse court systems across different regions.

  • Victorian Court System
  • Legal Framework
  • Law Evolution
  • Social Cohesion
  • Court Systems

Uploaded on Sep 21, 2024 | 0 Views


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.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.

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.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The scary court bit!

  2. Background definitions, terms History and structure of the Victorian court system Court processes who, where, what, how? Worries, concerns, questions experience?

  3. Sets of rules governing units/societies Social cohesion enhances survival of social groups Law is an artificial construct All people have an innate sense of right and wrong BUT one person s may be different to another s Law = set of rules that capture the social norm & regulate individuals in society Law = assessment against a set of rules NOT an assessment of right and wrong Everybody is equal and it should be hard to remove a person s liberty .

  4. Law is an artificial construct All people have an innate sense of right and wrong BUT one person s may be different to another s Law = set of rules that capture the social norm & regulate individuals in society Law = assessment against a set of rules NOT an assessment of right and wrong Everybody is equal and it should be hard to remove a person s liberty .

  5. Used in courts of law Fit for legal argument Relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime

  6. Shared with the English system Transported here with the convicts Terra Nullis nothing here indigenous people s systems not recognised Initially an extension of the King s jurisdiction medieval England. Matters heard by the King or delegates Kings decision; Judge made Law (statute or Acts) Development of precedent cases should be decided in the same way as previous cases The law is found not made through argument and persuasion Basis of current criminal law

  7. Adversarial Australia, UK Inquisitorial European Religious -Islamic countries Customary/traditional Koori courts Each system consists of criminal (protection of society guilty or innocent) and civil law (disputes between citizens, protection of an individual financial compensation)

  8. Matters solved by trial by ordeal (criminal cases) or trial by battle (non-criminal cases) Trial by ordeal ended 1215, trial by battle ended 1819 Development of local jury decided who was telling the truth Trial by peers

  9. INQUISITORIAL ADVERSARIAL Decider hears all the arguments each party calls witnesses Decision made by lay jury Strict rules of evidence Police direct Ix and prepare brief Prosecutor presents case on behalf of the state act fairly, defence challenges Must be beyond reasonable doubt (criminal) or balance of probability (civil) Decider (magistrate/judge) comes to a conclusion Facts in one hand, legislation in the other Magistrate leads Ix Any type of evidence accepted Judge according to soul and conscience experience/intuition In Australia criminal and civil systems are adversarial Coroners courts, Royal commissions and tribunals use inquisitorial system

  10. Court of appeal and trial court Treason, murder, high level civil Supreme court of Victoria (court of appeal for county/family court) Both original cases and appeals Principal trial court Indictable criminal cases except treason and murder/murder-related Serious civil offences County court (court of appeal for magistrates court) Magistrates court (State coroners office, PERIN, victims of crime assistance tribunal and family/children s court, drug court, koori court, family violence court) > 90% of court matters All summary and most indictable (not robbery, rape, murder) Civil matters up to $100,000 Family law and work injury

  11. 477 Little Lonsdale Street - also sit at magistrates court CBD or country Matters concerning children under 18 years Appeals made to the supreme court 2 divisions; criminal and family The Family Division hears: applications relating to the protection and care of children and young persons at risk applications for intervention orders The Children's Koori Court (Criminal Division) hears: matters relating to criminal offending by Koori children/young persons, other than sexual offences. The Criminal Division hears: matters relating to criminal offending by children and young persons.

  12. What evidence is admissible, how it should be heard All relevant evidence is admissible in court Example of adjectival law the laws that govern the way in which legal processes are carried out Underpins the adversarial system

  13. Placed on prosecution Any/reasonable doubt not guilty If defence have to prove a fact (rare) balance of probability Not NO doubt Must be hard to remove liberty

  14. Relevance generally pertinent to the case Admissibility relevant to the facts and not excluded by a rule of evidence (fairness), overly prejudicial with little probative value Judge decides Weight degree of consideration that should be given to that piece of evidence. Jury decides Judicial notice/Presumption accept facts without hearing evidence taken as read , matters of common knowledge eg presumption of death Burden of proof carried by the prosecution Standard of proof balance of probability (civil) and beyond reasonable doubt (criminal)

  15. Same set of rules apply If child is competent they are compellable Must be competent to swear the oath Not a matter of age but of understanding Can give unsworn evidence but hard to convict on that evidence Unsworn evidence of one child cannot corroborate unsworn evidence of another

  16. Witnesses are the lifeblood of the courts Who can give evidence? Competence legally capable Compellability can be compelled to give evidence Usually the same BUT with doctors they can be competent to give evidence of the facts but may not be competent to give an opinion about those facts NOT legally competent

  17. Expert is privileged Draws inferences from those facts Can therefore give opinions, interpretations and draw conclusions Based on qualifications or training No property in an expert witness either party OPINION EVIDENCE Lay person gives evidence based on facts Determined by their 5 senses Story of what they have said, done, heard

  18. A field of specialised knowledge (identifiable training, study or experience) Opinion wholly/substantially based on witnesses expert knowledge Demonstration of scientific basis for opinion Party calling must qualify before the courts examination in chief Matter for court not jury jury may decide weight May require a voir-dire Expertise limited in TIME and EXTENT Re-accredited each time Sub-specialising

  19. To furnish judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of their conclusions in order to enable the judge and jury to form an opinion by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence Opinion is admissible when it can furnish the court with information likely to be outside the experience or knowledge of the judge or jury

  20. Overriding duty to assist the court Not an advocate for either party Duty to the court and not to the person retaining them Report must comply with standards set and state compliance with the code of conduct and agreement to be bound by it

  21. Crime is a conduct for which defendant is responsible Conduct has mental elements (the responsibility) as well as physical elements (the conduct) = mens rea (state of mind) and actus reus (act)

  22. I charge that Jack Hughes on the 2nd day of March at Sydney in the state of NSW, being then armed with an offensive weapon, to wit, a knife, did rob James Blake of certain money, to wit, $25 The unlawful taking and carrying away of property of some value From the person of another Against that person s will Either by force or putting the person in fear With the intention of permanently depriving the person of such property Whilst armed with an offensive weapon

  23. The legal process Admissibility barrier Initial investigation Court proceedings Case preparation

  24. Evidence that may be taken into account in finding the facts Relevant to the facts of the case and not specifically excluded by a rule of evidence Evidence needs to pass this so that jury only hears admissible or acceptable evidence Collection, examination, analysis of evidence needs to be rigorous to overcome admissibility barrier For us - social information, features of examination, DNA collection methods .

  25. Judge the boss, referee, summing up, sentencing, admissibility (can exercise discretion). Matters of law determined by the judge and questions of fact by the jury. Jury selection can be challenged, can be directed to acquit by judge, 12 members Prosecutor counsel for the plaintiff, presents relevant evidence to establish elements of charge, act fairly, not knowingly mislead Defence counsel for the respondent, needs to cast doubt on an element of the charge. Need to demonstrate; No case to answer Errors in prosecution s case Discredit reliability of witnesses, attack credibility and truthfulness

  26. A pre-trial process After prosecution evidence is called Magistrate decides whether the evidence is capable of satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt If there is a reasonable prospect of conviction then the accused is committed for trial These can be tricky no jury no holds barred

  27. Read your subpoena/summons ring if a diary clash Subpoena (higher courts) - A written order commanding a person to attend and/or produce documents within their possession Summons (magistrates) - Document issued by a court requiring a person to appear at a particular court either to give evidence or produce documents Read your notes and know your case (every word!) If you find an error or inconsistency notify instructing solicitor and the court at the beginning of examination-in-chief 1-2 weeks prior to court date ring re pre-court conference Director of Public Prosecutions Sticky tabs on notes, visual aids, props, court bag

  28. Find your courtroom and wait outside Tipstaff will ask you to come in when they are ready for you As you walk in, stop and bow to the coat of arms Follow tipstaff to witness stand Stand still and wait Oath or affirmation

  29. Listen carefully, ask permission to refer to notes/show props Examination-in-chief; Qualify you as an expert Elucidates facts/opinions in report, significance and limitations of findings Relates to the matters in dispute Non-leading questions If judge asks for clarification, try to re-word

  30. Cross examination; By defence counsel Opinion, veracity and competency might be challenged May offer alternative scenarios Questions open or leading Don t stress/get riled. Answer openly, honestly and keep calm Accept alternative hypotheses if plausible, reject if not Do not get angry, look frustrated or act uncooperatively or as if defence counsel is an idiot

  31. Dont stonewall, there may be a good reason for question Can appeal directly to the judge/magistrate if you have a problem Address your answers either to the judge/magistrate or to the jury Pick one member and speak to them If need to read a text/paper ask for time to do that

  32. PERSUASIVE PROBLEMATIC Prior field experience Clarity of explanation Impartiality Fact familiarity Educational qualifications Prior forensic experience Appearance and publications Expert bias Complex expert language and poor cross examination Expert exceeding expertise and poor examination-in- chief Failure to prove opinion bases Expert non-responsive

  33. there are 2 ways to cross-examine, depending on the witness and your mood. You either start off politely, asking a series of questions to which the answer will be Yes gaining the subject s confidence and agreement, leading him gently up the garden path to a carefully planned booby trap, or you go in like an old warship, with all guns blazing Rumpole of the Bailey Don t take it personally, everyone has a role to play

  34. Examining and cross-examining expert witnesses is something that as advocates many of us dread or dreaded Hon Mrs H Hallet DBE You are not the one on trial!

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#