U3 AOS1b

• reasons for a court hierarchy: specialisation and appeals
• specialisation: courts can develop expertise in hearing certain kinds of cases within their jurisdiction
• CoA appelate jurisdiction: county or trial division
• TD appellate: Magistrates on points of law
• County appellate: magistrates on conviction and sentencing
• Magistrates original: all summary offences & indictable offences heard summarily, committal proceedings
• county original: indictable offences
• TD original: most serious indictable offences (murder)
• appellant = party who appeals
• respondent = other party
• TD has developed expertise in the most serious indictable offences, the elements of crime, and process involved
• appeals allow for mistakes to be corrected
• reasons for appeals: question of law, conviction, sentence
• strengths of a court hierarchy: efficient processes and specific training, the outcome is sound.
• weaknesses of a court hierarchy: complexity can be overwhelming and difficult to understand, and appeals can take years to resolve which adds additional stress for victims
• judge role: act impartiality, manage the trial/hearing, decide or oversee outcome of the case and sentence an offender
• judge strengths: impartial, oversee legal proceedings and allowing both parties to present their case, can assist self-represented parties
• judge weakness: apprehended bias, notable shortage of diversity and they cannot overly interfere in self-represented accused
• role of the jury: be objective, listen & remember evidence, understand directions & summing up, and deliver a verdict
• jury strengths: no connection to parties, justice is 'seen to be done', collective decision making and diverse
• jury weaknesses: unconscious bias, complex and difficult to understand which could result in further delays and may not be representative of the society as a whole
• parties have party control
• prosecution roles: disclose info to accused, deliver their case and make submissions about sentencing
• accused roles: participate in the trial/hearing, and make submissions about sentencing
• party strengths: no "trial by ambush", both parties can present their case how they want, and the accused has no obligation to present evidence
• party weaknesses: not early or adequate disclosure, self-represented parties, and the truth can remain hidden due to the right to silence and party control
• barrister: independent, self-employed lawyer with specialist skills
• solicitor: employees of a firm and work advising clients in a broad range of issues
• lawyers are needed because they have skills, expertise and objectivity
• self-represented accused may lack skills and experience to navigate the criminal justice system
• criminal procedures act 2009 (vic) - courts can adjourn trial until legal rep is provided to accused
• lawyers strength: experts, objective, and can help to prevent delays, present case in the best possible light
• lawyer weaknesses: equality in skill level, financial feasibility -> unjust outcome, additional support needed
• costs: affording legal rep, VLA, insufficient funding, 'missing middle', pro bono, plea negs
• time: right to be tried without unreasonable delay, complexity, plea negs, Online Magistrates Court Program
• culture: familiarity with the system, language, body language, misunderstandings, Koori Court, interpreters, VLA
• Koori Court: sentencing is informal but only a sentencing court
• K.C eligibility: First Nations person, plead guilty, live/charged within relevant area
• Purposes of sanctions: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, Denunciation, Protection, Punishment
• specific deterrence: discourage same offender from committing further crimes