SAC Flashcards
Legal representation in the adversary system
The role of preparing and conducting a case is usually undertaken by legal representatives on behalf of the parties. They are experts who are familiar with the strict rules of evidence and procedure that are essential elements of the adversary system. These experts help to ensure that the parties are able to present their best possible case, and to assist in achieving a just outcome.
Legal representation in the inquisitorial system
Due to the judge’s active role in relation to investigation and questioning, the legal representatives have a lesser role to play in the inquisitorial system. They assist the judge with finding out the truth. This can include further questioning of witnesses.
Compare the adversary system and the inquisitorial system in regards to legal representation.
Due to the complex rules of evidence and procedure, each party in the adversary system needs to be represented by an expert legal representative who understands these rules. The legal representative for each party will prepare and argue their case to the court. There is less need for legal representatives in the inquisitorial system, where their role is mainly to assist the judge in finding truth.
The role of the parties in the adversary system
Each party controls their own case and has complete control over decisions about how the case will be run as long as the rules of evidence and procedure are followed. They are responsible for various aspects of the trial such as instigating the proceedings, investigating the facts and deciding which facts should be brought before the court. They are also able to chose the mode of trial in a civil case.
The role of the parties in the inquisitorial system
Due to the judge having control of the case in the inquisitorial system, the parties have a greatly reduced role. They are required to respond to the directions of the court. While this may reduce the effects of some inequities between parties, it places control of their case in the hands of a third party.
Compare the adversary system and the inquisitorial system in regards to the role of the parties.
The emphasis in the adversary system is on party control, with the parties determining whether the case will go to court, which court, the mode of trial, and the evidence to be presented at trial. The parties in the inquisitorial system have less control over their case. This control is predominantly with the judge.
Suggest a possible reform for the adversary system
To adjust the way that witnesses give their evidence. New rules could be introduced which allow witnesses to tell their evidence in story form and in a manner that helps reduce the pressure they might feel. Similar to written statements, a witness could be asked to tell their story (and not in a question and answer format), which may help the witness be more free to say what he or she can.
Who is eligible for jury service
People are randomly selected for jury duty from the electoral rolls. If a person is a registered voter, he or she may be called for jury duty.
Who is responsible for selection of prospective jurors
The Juries Commissioner notifies the Electoral Commissioner of the number of people estimated to be required for jury service for any particular jury district. The Electoral Commissioner randomly selects the required number of people from the electoral rolls. The list of prospective jurors is sent to the Juries Commissioner.
By whom is the jury questionnaire sent and what is its purpose
The Juries Commissioner sends a questionnaire to each person on the list. The questionnaire is designed to ascertain whether the person is qualified to serve on a jury or if there is any reason why they cannot serve. After checking each questionnaire, the Juries Commissioner will decide whether the person is liable for jury service.
How are eligible jurors informed of the need to attend jury service
If eligible, prospective jurors will be sent a jury summons, which requires them to attend court for jury service at a later date.
What are the 3 reasons why some individuals may not serve on a jury
Disqualified
Ineligible
Excused
Disqualified
Some people are disqualified from jury service because of something they did in the past that makes them unsuitable. For example, people who have been convicted of an indictable offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three years or who are bankrupt are disqualified because they may be seen as unreliable or may be biased towards the accused.
Inelegible
Someone may be ineligible because of their occupation or their inability to comprehend the task of a juror.
OCCUPATION For example, people who are employed in law enforcement or the provision of legal services in criminal cases are ineligible for jury service because their opinion might carry too much weight. Each member of the jury should make a decision on the facts as they see them. If a person who is involved in the legal profession believes, something, other jury members might think that the person must be right because of their training.
COMPREHEND People who are unable to comprehend the task or carry out the duties of being on a jury are also ineligible because they would not be able to make an appropriate decision on the facts before them. This includes people who cannot read or understand English, or a person who has a physical disability that renders him or her incapable of performing the duty of being a juror, for example being deaf or intellectually disabled. Schedule 2 of the Juries Act 2000 (Vic.) lists people who are ineligible to serve as jurors.
Excused
A person may apply to p be excused from jury service. The Juries Commissioner will excuse the person if satisfied that there is a good reason for doing so. Good reasons include illness or poor health, incapacity, substantial hardship to the person would result from the person attending for jury service, and more. A person wishing to be excused must either give evidence on oath or provide a statutory declaration.
