SAC1B

• the principles of justice in a criminal case are fairness, equality and access
• the principle of justice fairness means having impartial and just treatment without discrimination or favouritism. It refers to fair processes and a fair hearing.
• the principle of justice equality means all people should be equal before the law and have the same opportunities as anyone else. This means that everyone is given an equal opportunity to present their case, regardless of personal factors
• the principle of justice access means everyone should be able to access the justice system and access information. It refers to people understanding their legal rights and pursuing claims in the legal system
• Fairness is upheld in a criminal matter through an impartial judge + jury, and open / public hearings.
• Equality is upheld in a criminal matter through all individuals being able to use the justice system & experience the same rights
• Access is upheld in a criminal matter through bodies such as Victorian Legal Aid (VLA), Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV), and Victorian Community Legal Centres (CLC's)
• Victorian Legal Aid (VLA) roles include

  • Provide legal aid in the most effective, economic and efficient manner
  • Manage its resources to make legal aid available at a low or reasonable cost
  • Provide improved access to justice and remedies
• the purpose of VLA is providing legal representation and legal aid to accused individuals in Victoria who would otherwise be unable to access these services.
• VLA offers free legal advice, free legal information, duty lawyer services, and legal representation/assistance.
• Community legal centres (CLC) provide accessible, efficient, and low-cost legal services and advice to the general public on a wide range of criminal and civil matters
• Roles of CLC's include

  • Provide legal advice and representation at low or no cost
  • Educate the general community as to their legal rights and obligations
  • Help in achieving just and equitable outcomes for their clients
• Plea negotiations are private discussions between the prosecutor and the accused about the charges against the accused; they aim to result in an agreement between the prosecution and the accused about which charges the accused is willing to plead guilty to
• The purposes of plea negotiations include

  • Save time, resources, and money by avoiding the need for a trial

  • Provide certainty by removing the risk of acquittal

  • Prevent further harm, trauma and inconvenience to victim/witnesses
• plea negotiations are appropriate when

  • issues with availability or reliability of key witnesses

  • if key evidence has been / might be deemed inadmissible

  • when the original charge by the police was incorrect

  • in order to secure more convictions of co-offenders and other offenders

  • significant savings in cost, time and stress when an accused is willing to plead guilty to a lesser charge
• plea negotiations are inappropriate when

  • in high profile cases (as it can be seen as going weak, as reasons behind negotiations cannot be revealed)

  • where the victim doesn’t want the seriousness of the offence reduced (although they have no ultimate say in this)

  • there is a significantly strong case for the DPP (strong evidence means there is no need to negotiate as they are definitely getting charged)
• strengths of plea negotiations

  • prompt determination of cases, as matter goes straight to sentencing • victims and witnesses are saved the trauma of a trial and reliving the experience

  • prosecutors are expected to consult with and consider the views of the victims

  • benefits the community, as money is saved from the trial and ensures prosecution resources are used as best as possible

  • there is certainty in the outcome, with no chance of acquittal and the accused gets sanctioned for a crime that fits the offending
• weaknesses of plea negotiations

  • failure to engage on negotiations or unsuccessful negotiations can create delays

  • a self-represented party may either feel pressured to accept a deal or the prosecution may be reluctant to negotiate with them

  • victims don’t have a final say and don’t have much influence over negotiations

  • negotiations are held in private, some people may question the reasoning behind the negotiation and community may lose faith

  • the prosecution doesn’t have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (may undermine the presumption of innocence)
• reasons for a court hierarchy: appeals, and specialisation
• specialisation is when the courts develop their own areas of expertise or specialisation, which saves on time and resources (eg. Magistrates Court specialises in committal proceedings, as they get a lot of them)
• appeals are when a party who is dissatisfied with a decision in a criminal case can take the matter to a higher court to challenge the decision and have it reviewed
• strengths of court hierarchy

  • a court hierarchy allows courts to specialise in different types of criminal matters, which allows more efficient processes or resources based on the cases they hear

  • the existence of a court hierarchy allows for appeals to be made by both parties if there is an error in the original decision
• weaknesses of court hierarchy

  • can be confusing for people who do not understand the cjs. this can be more so for people charged with an indictable offence, where the case will involve both the Magistrates Court (committal proceeding) and one of the higher courts (for the trial)

  • the court hierarchy does not allow for an automatic right to appeal in most instances; offenders need to establish grounds for an appeal. This can restrict the ability of the accused to access the appeal process, particularly self-represented people, who may struggle to form grounds for an appeal
• role of judge/Magistrate

  • Manage the trial – ensuring that correct court procedure is followed, give directions, and clear up ambiguities made in submissions by parties
  • Decide on the admissibility of evidence – the judge must ensure evidence is compliant with common law
  • Attend to jury matters (explain processes and legal jargon)
  • Hand down a sentence
• role of jury

  • Be objective – the jury must be unbiased and open minded, and decide the case based on the facts alone
  • Listen to and remember the evidence
  • Deliver a verdict – a unanimous verdict is required for most serious offences, but a majority verdict may be accepted for certain offences
• role of defence

  • Comply with their duty to the court – lawyers have a duty to the court to act ethically and in accordance with the law, and not misrepresent the law or their client’s case
  • Present their client’s case in the best light possible
  • Inform accused of their legal rights
• role of accused / prosecution

  • Give an opening address to the jury/judge
  • Present their case to the court in an open, diligent manner
  • Make submissions about sentencing (should the accused be found/plead guilty)