Legal Studies Units 3/4 Exam Flashcards
Distinguish between summary and indictable offences
Summary offence: A less serious offence heard in the Magistrates’ Court by a Magistrate sitting alone (rather than a judge and jury), which may be heard in the absence of the accused (e.g., road traffic offences and minor assaults)
Indictable offence: A more serious offence generally tried in the County or Supreme Court by a Judge (and a jury if the accused pleads not guilty), which cannot be heard in the absence of the accused (e.g., murder and drug trafficking offences)
Key principles in the criminal justice system; including the burden of proof, standard of proof, and the presumption of innocence
Burden of proof: Refers to the party which has the obligation to provide their assertion in court. In criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, as it is the party which initiates the criminal proceedings
Standard of proof: Refers to the degree or the strength of the evidence required by the party bringing an action to prove their case. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the average person should not have any rational doubt as to the guilt of the accused, after logically assessing the evidence
The presumption of innocence: Means that if a person is accused of committing a crime, they are considered innocent until proven otherwise. The presumption of innocence is considered to be fundamental aspect of the Victorian criminal justice system and a fundamental human right, which is outlined in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The presumption of innocence is reinforced by the criminal burden and standard of proof, as these impose on the prosecution the responsibility of proving a charge beyond reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard to meet
Rights of an accused - The right to be tried without unreasonable delay
This means an accused is entitled to have their charges heard in a timely manner and that delays should only occur if they are considered reasonable. An example of a reasonable delay would be the complexity of a case where the prosecution may require more time for a case involving multiple crime scenes, multiple crimes, multiple accused people with few or no witnesses. This right is supported by section 21 (5) of the Human Rights Charter which states that a person who is arrested or detained on a criminal charge has the right to be brought to trial without unreasonable delay. This is because under the charter people have a basic right to liberty and security and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty
Rights of an accused - The right to silence*
This means the accused has the right to refuse to answer any questions and does not have to give any information as part of the investigation of the crime. The accused cannot be forced to give evidence in criminal trial or answer any questions, file any defence or call a witness as part of a trial. Upheld through section 89 of the evidence act 2008
Rights of an accused - The right to trial by jury
The right to trial by jury guarantees individuals the opportunity to have their cases heard and decided by a group of random individuals known as the jury. This right is placed to ensure fairness and impartiality. The right to trial by jury includes diverse perspectives and promotes transparency. It is upheld through section 80 of the Australian Constitution
Rights of victims - The right to give evidence using alternative arragements*
In some criminal cases a victim may be a witness and therefore may be required to give evidence to the prosecution’s case against the accused. Sections in the Criminal Procedures Act (2009) Vic aim to protect certain individuals in certain types of cases. Therefore allowing for alternative arrangements to be made so witnesses can provide evidence in a different way. Example cases where this will be eligible is if it is a sexual offence, family offence an offence for obscene indecent and threatening language in public
Rights of victims - The right to be informed about proceedings
Once a prosecution has commenced the victim’s charter requires the prosecution to give a victim the following information
(1) Details of the offence charged against the person
(2) If no offence is charged a reason why
(3) Details of any appeal
Rights of victims - The likely release date of an offender
Once a person is registered on the victim’s register, they may receive information about an offender who has been imprisoned including the release date of the offender 14 days prior to the release. There’re other rights including knowing the length of a sentence and the right to be told if a prisoner escapes from prison
Fairness
One of the principles of justice. Fairness means all people can participate in the justice system and its processes should be open and fair
Equality
One of the principles of justice. Equality means people should be treated in the same way, but if the same treatment causes disparity or disadvantages, adequate measures should be implemented to allow all to engage with the justice system without disparity or disadvantages
Access
One of the principles of justice. Access means that all people should be able to engage with the justice system and its processes on an informed basis
VLA
The Victorian Legal Aid (VLA) is a government-funded organisation which provides legal advice and representation to people charged with offences who cannot otherwise afford legal representation
Role of VLA - Accused
- Free legal information
- Free legal advice
- Duty lawyer services
- Grants of legal assistance
Role of VLA - Victims
- Free legal information
- Free legal advice
- Duty lawyer services
- Grants of legal assistance
CLC
Community Legal Centres are independent community organisations that provide free legal services to members of the public
Role of CLC - Accused
- Basic legal information
- Legal advice and assistance
- Ongoing coursework
Role of CLC - Victims
- Basic legal information
- Legal advice and assistance
- Ongoing coursework
Plea negotiations
[in criminal cases] pre-trial discussions that take place between the prosecution and the accused, aimed at resolving the case by agreeing on an outcome to the criminal charges laid (also known as charge negotiations)
Purposes of plea negotiations
- To ensure certainty of the outcome of a criminal case
- To save on costs, time and resources
- To achieve a prompt resolution to a criminal case without the stress, trauma and inconvenience of a criminal trial
Appropriateness of plea negotiations
- Whether the accused is willing to cooperate
- The strength of the evidence
- Whether the accused is ready and willing to plead guilty
Discuss the appropriateness of plea negotiations
Plea negotiations are pre-trial discussions between the prosecution and the accused, aimed at resolving the case by agreeing on an outcome to the criminal charges laid. In a plea negotiation the accused may plead guilty to the charges, thus ensuring certainty of the outcome and removing the risk of an acquittal, allowing for the principle of fairness to be achieved. Furthermore, if a plea negotiation results in an early guilty plea, it avoids the need for a trial or hearing and therefore saves the court and the prosecution’s resources, as well as it avoids the costs and time associated with a trial once again achieving the principle of fairness. However, on the other hand a self-represented party present at a plea negotiation can be forced into taking the plea deal, as they do not have a lawyer to guide them ultimately harming the principle of fairness. Additionally, accepting a plea negotiation usually results in a shortened sentence and leads the offender back into the community sooner than intended therefore compromising the principle of fairness.
Reasons for the Victorian Court Hierarchy (specialisation and appeals)
The Victorian court hierarchy is in place to ensure that different types of cases are heard in different levels of court in Victoria, generally with less serious cases being heard in lower courts such as the Magistrates’ Court and more serious cases being heard in the higher courts such as the County Court or Supreme Court.
One reason for the Victorian court hierarchy is the appeals process whereby the prosecution or an accused can have a case or imposed sentence reassessed by a higher, more superior court to the court which originally decided a matter, if they believe that the original decision was unjust.
A second reason for the Victorian court hierarchy is the idea of specialisation, which is the notion that each court, and the judges within it, become familiar with the types of cases that they hear, and develop expertise in these areas
Role of the Judge/Magistrates - Criminal
In a Victorian criminal trial, the judge acts as an impartial and independent umpire who ensures that court processes and procedures are carried out according to strict rules of evidence and procedure. They do not get involved in the case, and will not ‘run the case’ in any way
Responsibilities of the Judge/Magistrates - Criminal
Ensuring rules of evidence and procedure are followed
- The judge is responsible for deciding the admissibility of evidence and ensuring that correct court procedures are followed so that both the prosecution and the defence have an equal opportunity to present their respective cases
Deciding questions of law
- The judge is responsible for determining the relevant law (that is, the relevant legislation and/or case law) to be applied to the criminal case before them, and in doing so, is responsible for explaining the law to the jury
Deciding the sentence
- If the accused has been found guilty, the judge is responsible for deciding the relevant sentence to be imposed (e.g., a sentence if imprisonment for a certain time, a fine a community correction order, etc.). In doing so, the judge is required to consider victim impact statements, mitigating factors, aggravating factors, the submission of a guilty plea (if applicable), and the maximum sentence for the offence
Limitations of the Judge/Magistrates - Criminal
- Due to their independence, the judge cannot offer the prosecution or an accused assistance, even if the accused is unrepresented or if their legal representative is performing their duties unsatisfactorily
- Judges cannot determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal trial (that is they are not the decider of fact) - even though they may be the best and most qualified to do so
Role of the Jury - Criminal
In a Victorian criminal trial the jury is made up of twelve people who are summoned to court and empaneled to decide on the evidence in a case and reach a verdict
Responsibilities of the Jury - Criminal
Making a decision on the facts of the case
- The jury is responsible for giving a verdict as to whether the accused is not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in accordance with the law and evidence presented. In doing this, the jury must first try to reach a unanimous verdict. However, if this is not possible after six hours of deliberation, a majority verdict (11 out of 12 jurors) can be accepted in most instances (with the exception of cases of murder, treason, and drug trafficking)
Taking part in deliberations
- The jury has the responsibility of taking part in deliberations in the jury room so that it is able to deliver a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’
Put aside prejudices
- Importantly the jury is required to put aside any personal prejudices or preconceptions so that they can return an unbiased and impartial verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’
Limitations of the Jury - Criminal
- There is always uncertainty as to whether a jury’s verdict is based on prejudice or not. Jurors can be influenced by the emotional elements of a trial, their own prejudices. This means that a jury’s decision may not be unbiased or based purely based on the facts of the case
- Having a jury as the decider of the facts can substantially slow down the trial process. Due to the time associated with empanelling the jury, explaining the law to the jury, and jury deliberations, the entire criminal trial process can be delayed
- Because those who sit on a jury have no legal training, it can be argued that they are not the best people to decide on whether or not someone is guilty of a crime. In addition, because the deliberations of a jury are kept secret, there is no way of knowing whether there was one person who was forcing others into a certain decision
- The process for choosing a jury, including who can be disqualified or excused from jury service, as well as both sides being able to ‘challenge’ a set number of jurors, can mean that the jury that eventually decides a case may not represent a true cross-section of society
Reasons for the parties - Criminal
In a Victorian criminal trial, the prosecution and the accused control their own cases and make decisions regarding how their cases will be run. This is known as party control
Responsibilities of the parties - Criminal
Instigating the proceedings (prosecution)
- The prosecution is responsible for bringing the case before the court
Choosing legal representation (accused)
- The accused is responsible for choosing whether to have legal representation, and assuming they chose to, he or she is responsible for selecting their legal representation
Attending court (accused)
- If charged with an indictable offence, the accused has the responsibility of attending the trial
The need for legal representation in a criminal case
In a Victorian criminal trial, the legal practitioners for the prosecution and the accused present the cases of each respective side. The legal practitioners for the accused also provide the accused with legal advice and advocacy
Responsibilities of legal practitioner - Criminal
Presenting the facts
- The legal practitioners for the prosecution and the defence are responsible for choosing how they will present their evidence, which witnesses they will call, and what questions they will ask. The legal practitioners for each side will do this in the way that will best strengthen their cases, though the prosecution has an obligation to bring out all the evidence known to it
Represent interests
- The legal practitioners for the prosecution and the defence are responsible for representing the interest of each side. The prosecution is responsible for conveying the values and interests of the wider community, and the legal practitioners for the accused are required to advocate for and represent the accused’s interests
Adhering to rules of evidence and procedure
- The legal practitioners for the prosecution and the defence are required to understand and adhere to the strict rules of evidence and procedure which exist in criminal court proceedings
Explaining the law and options (legal practitioners for the accused)
- The legal practitioners for the defence have the responsibility of explaining the applicable law and the different legal options of the accused to them
Limitations of legal practitioners - Criminal
- The reliance on legal practitioners in criminal trials can be extremely costly. This is especially true for the accused, who is likely to be faced with high solacer and barrister fees
- If the accused is unrepresented, they will also hold most of the responsibilities of a legal practitioner
What are costs - Criminal
The main costs a person is likely to incur in a criminal trial case are the costs of engaging with a lawyer to provide legal services such as legal advice or representation
Discuss the impact of costs on the achievement of the principles of justice - Criminal
The main cost a party is likely to incur in a criminal trial case are the costs of engaging with a lawyer to provide legal services such as legal advice or representation. Legal services can be provided through legal service providers such as VLA and CLCs, as well as pro bono institutions and some measures are in place to try reduce the costs , such as committal proceedings and plea negotiations, ultimately promoting the principles of fairness, equality and access. However, everyone has the right to legal representation and not everyone can afford it. This can disadvantage accused people in particular, as they lack the necessary skills, experience and objectivity to navigate the system without a lawyer, harming the principle of equality. Additionally, VLA and CLCs are stretched in the number of people they can assist hurting the ability of financially struggling accused people to have a fair trial therefore harming the principle of fairness
What are times - Criminal
Time in a criminal case refers to the right to be tried without unreasonable delay, and that delays should only occur if they are considered reasonable
Discuss the impact of times on the achievement of the principles of justice - Criminal
Time in a criminal case refers to the right to be tried without unreasonable delay, and that delays should only occur if they are considered reasonable. This right is upheld under the Victorian Human Rights Charter. However to address time, there is improved technology and increasing use of virtual hearings that may also help alleviate the pressure, promoting access and reducing delays. Additionally an accused has the right to be tried without unreasonable delay which promotes the principle of access. However on the other hand, there are possible delays in having a trial heard which can affect the ability of the criminal justice system to achieve justice ultimately compromising achieving the principle of access. Furthermore, there are court delays associated with the complexities of the case, so delays are inevitable prolonging the achievement of access
What are cultural differences - Criminal
Cultural differences relates to there being different cultures and how we can take measures to ensure the their cases are heard fairly
Discuss the impact of cultural differences on the achievement of the principles of justice - Criminal
Cultural differences relates to there being different cultures and how we can take measures to ensure the their cases are heard fairly. An advantage of cultural differences affecting the principle of access is information is also provided by VLA and some CLCs in different languages, allowing access to many. Another advantage is the Koori Court which seeks to address the cultural differences faced by First Nations offenders, promoting equality. A disadvantage is that the Koori court is limited to sentencing only, so First Nations accused must need a fair trial initially for the Koori court to be useful ultimately harming the principle of access. Another disadvantage is First Nations people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, being more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous people, meaning that the criminal justice system is still struggling to achieve the principles of justice in relation to cultural differences.
Purposes of sanctions: Rehabilitation
One purpose of a sanction, designed to reform an offender in order to prevent them from committing offences in the future. An advantage is that it can help an offender change their attitude and behaviour with the goal of preventing them from reoffending. A disadvantage is the ability for a person to rehabilitate while in prison may depend on the offender, the programs available, and the length of a sentence.
Purposes of sanctions: Punishment
Designed to penalise (punish) the offender and show society and the victim that criminal behaviour will not be tolerated. Society must punish offenders so victims do not seek to punish the offenders themselves. An advantage is punishment through the courts avoids the need for the victim of a crime to take the matter into their own hands. A disadvantage is it can increase recidivism as an imprisoned offender can learn from other criminals.
Purposes of sanctions: Deterrence
Designed to discourage the offender and others in the community from committing similar offences. Either General deterrence which is designed to discourage others in the community from committing similar offences or Specific deterrence is designed to discourage the offender from committing further offences. An advantage is reduce recidivism from offenders not recommitting crimes. A disadvantage is specific deterrence may not be as significant if the offender is remorseful, is a first-time offender or if the circumstances of offending are unique.
Purposes of sanctions: Denunciation
Designed to demonstrate the community’s disapproval of the offender’s actions. As part.of its sentencing, the court will seek to reinforce that community expectations and values mean that this type of behaviour is not acceptable, and must be condemned. An advantage is community involvement is highlighted with the use of community expectations and values. A disadvantage is can be very harsh on individual offenders and disproportionate for what crime they have actually committed.
Purposes of sanctions: Protection
Designed to safeguard the community from an offender by preventing them from committing further offence (e.g by imprisoning the offender). Can also be through a non-custodial sentence like a CCO as they can keep an offender busy and keep them away from certain areas. A advantage is that it protects members of the community from a dangerous offender. A disadvantage is that an offender can be treated unfairly based on potential risk to society
Purposes of fines
A fine is a sanction that requires the offender to pay an amount of money to the state. The amount of the fine often depends on the maximum penalty units that can be imposted for a certain offence, which is normally stated in the statue setting out that offence
Fines can achieve the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Though denunciation also can be achieved. Rehabilitation and protection are less relevant for fines
Purposes of Community Correction Orders (CCOs)
A flexible, non-custodial sanction 9one that does not involve a prison sentence) that the offender serves in the community, with conditions attached to the order
A CCO can achieve all of the purposes of sanctions depending on the circumstances of the offending and the offender. Deterrence, rehabilitation and denunciation are often purposes of imposing a CCO, but protection and punishment can also be achieved
Purposes of imprisonment
A sanction that involves removing the offender from society for a stated period of time and placing them in prison
Imprisonment can achieve all purposes of sanctions, however rehabilitation may not always be achieved due to the offender not wanting to cooperate
Discuss the ability of sanctions to achieve their purpose (using the example of imprisonment)
Imprisonment is a type of sanction which is an order that an offender serves time in prison, where they are removed from society and are deprived of their liberty and freedom, with a recorded conviction. Imprisonment arguably works to achieve all five of the specific purposes of sanctions, however, there is continual debate in society about how well it achieves the different purposes. For example, while protection of society is very easily achieved through imprisonment, as it involves the offender being physically removed from the community, it is arguably less about achieving rehabilitation, as while prisons do attempt rehabilitation programs for inmates, their effectiveness is limited once the prisoner is released. In relation to punishment and denunciation, imprisonment arguably achieves these quite well, as the denial of liberty for an individual is a very large punishment, as well as very likely to be able to achieve the aim of denunciation. Lastly, in relation to deterrence, imprisonment can act as a general deterrent, since the possibility of going to prison and losing one’s freedom discourages most members of the public from committing a crime. However, recidivism rates suggest that imprisonment is ineffective as a specific deterrent. This may be a result of the negative influences an offender becomes exposed to in prison
Aggravating factors
Aggravating facts are those facts or circumstances relating to the offence, the victim, or the offender which increase the offender’s culpability or fault. In this way, aggravating factors work against the accused and are likely to result in a more severe sentence
Aggravating factors examples
- The offender planned the crime out
- The offender used a weapon
- The offender committed the crime in the presence of a minor
- The offender has a prior criminal record
Mitigating factors
Mitigating factors are those facts or circumstances relating to the offence, the victim, or the offender which decreases the offender’s culpability or fault. In this way, mitigating factors assist the accused and are likely to result in a less severe sentence. However, it is important to note that mitigating factors do not excuse the offender’s behaviour
Mitigating factors examples
- The offender being provoked
- The offender having a mental illness or disability
- The offender being of character
- The offender being young
Guilty pleas
In sentencing the offender, the magistrate or judge will consider (if applicable) the offender’s guilty plea, and will consider the stage at which they entered this plea. Generally the earlier the guilty plea is entered, the more favourable the court will be towards the offender when sentencing them
The Sentencing Act provides for sentence discounts for guilty pleas. Meaning that a court must impose a less sever sentence when the offender pleads guilty to an offence
Victim impact statements
In sentencing, an offender who is guilty of an offence, the court will consider any victim impact statements submitted to the court
Victim impact statements detail the effects of the offence on the victim, alongside any injury, loss, or damage suffered by the victim as a direct consequence of the crime. The Sentencing Act outlines the right of victims to make victim impact statements
Evaluate the ability oft the criminal justice system to achieve the principles of justice during a criminal case
Burden of proof - Civil
The burden of proof shows who must prove their case is true. In civil cases, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, as it is the party which imitates the civil proceeding
Standard of proof - Civil
Refers to the degree or strength of the evidence required by the party bringing an action to provide their case. In civil cases, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. This means that the plaintiff must prove that he or she is most probably in the right, whilst the defendant is most probably in the wrong
Factors to consider before initiating a civil claim - Costs*
Before initiating a civil claim, it is very important for the plaintiff to consider the costs associated with pursing a civil action.
Initiating and continuing a civil claim can be very expensive and can be a significant financial burden for a plaintiff. Whilst some costs can be avoided, such as solicitor and barrister fees, evading these costs can be very detrimental to the plaintiff’s case (may result in the plaintiff being unrepresented in court). Additionally, in a lot of circumstances some costs cannot be avoided, such as subpoena fees, hearing fees, jury fees and out of pocket court expenses. It is also worth noting that pursuing a civil claim can require time away from employment, which may result in a loss of income.
Accordingly initiating and pursing a civil claim can potentially cost thousands and thousands of dollars, which should be carefully considered by any potential plaintiff.
Factors to consider before initiating a civil claim - Limitation of actions*
Limitation of actions requires that certain civil claims be filed by certain dates, and it is fundamental that potential plaintiffs be aware of these time constraints. For example, defamation cases have a 12 month limitation period.
Any civil claim filed outside a limitation period is very likely to be unsuccessful - meaning that it is essential for potential plaintiffs to consider any limitation of actions before initiating a civil case
Factors to consider before initiating a civil claim - Enforcement issues*
Enforcement issues are complications which can occur during the application or execution of a court order. For example, problems regarding the payment of compensation by the defendant to the plaintiff, due to the defendant lacking the financial means to make payment. Accordingly, it is very important for potential plaintiffs to consider enforcement issues before commencing civil proceedings
Mediation
Mediation is an informal process by which two or more parties to a civil dispute cooperatively attempt to resolve their dispute and reach a decision themselves, with the support of at least on independent third party, called a mediator
Role of the mediator
Mediator is responsible for independently facilitating communication between the plaintiff and the defendant, and ensuring that each party is heard without interfering or offering advice. The mediator should also encourage the parties to explore issues, consider possible outcomes, and reach an agreement, without imposing a decision on the parties. Any decision reached by the parties is not legally binding itself, however, in most situations the parties will enter into legal terms of settlement, which is enforceable through the courts
Appropriateness of mediation
For many civil cases, mediation tends to be an appropriate dispute resolution method. Mediation will usually be ver appropriate and beneficial when a continuing relationship is required between the disputing parties - such as when the dispute is between neighbours. Mediation has also shown to be appropriate when effective in many family law matters where the preservation of the parties’ relationship is paramount. Mediation is also useful in these situations because it allows for the emotion of the case to be heard, rather than needing to present all evidence according to the strict rules of evidence and procedure within a courtroom - emotions can be discussed and can be used in a mediation to develop a more effective solution. Mediation also is most effective when both parties are willing to meet in a spirt of compromise and are prepared to stick ant agreement reached. Additionally, mediation will generally be appropriate in disputes where the defendant has admitted liability, and the only issue is to determine the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff.
Nevertheless, there are a number of civil cases where mediation may be an inappropriate method of dispute resolution. Mediation tends to be inappropriate and ineffective as a dispute resolution method when there are overwhelming emotions involved in the disputes that can interfere with the negotiation process. Additionally, mediation is inappropriate in disputes where there is evidence of a gross imbalance of power between the parties, scubas between the employee and employer, if, for example, there has been a charge brought forward by the employee. Mediation may also be inappropriate in disputes where there is a history of dishonest and broken promises, as mediation often requires the goodwill and honesty of the parties to be a successful alternative dispute resolution method
Conciliation
Conciliation is an informal process by which two or more parties to a civil dispute cooperatively attempt to resolve their dispute and reach a decision between themselves, with the assistance and advice of an independent third party called a conciliator