The Judiciary Flashcards
Outline 3 roles of the High Court (highest court in judicial system)
- Acting as the highest court of APPEAL
- Protecting the rights of Australians
- Acting as a ‘check’ on Commonwealth lawmaking powers
Define express rights
rights that are written/embedded within the Constitution that cannot be changed unless a referendum is held and is successful.
Outline five express rights entrenched in the Constitution
- Freedom of religion
- Acquisition of property on just terms
- Trial by jury for indictable offences
- Trade between states shall be free
- The right to not be discriminated based upon states of residence
Outline how the High Court acts as a ‘check’ on parliament
When individuals believe their rights have been infringed, they have standing to take the matter to courts.
Standing: the ability for a party to show that they were directly affected by the outcome of a case.
Original jurisdiction
the authority or legal power of a court to hear the case at first instance
Appellate jurisdiction
the power of a court to hear and determine a matter on appeal
Appeal
a party attempting to seek a review of the trial judge’s decision from a more superior court to correct/reverse the decision that was made
Jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court, including committals
lowest court in hierarchy, although the busiest when it comes to resolving criminal disputes.
warrants, bail applications, and summary offenses heard in MC.
committals are also in charge of COMMITTALS; a series of hearings that occur when an accused has been charged with an indictable offense in order to determine if sufficient evidence exists for the matter to be taken to trial.
The County Court
original: hears all indictable offences but murder and manslaughter
appellate: hears appeals against conviction and sentencing from the Magistrates’ court in criminal matters
The Supreme Court (TRIAL DIV)
Original: The trial division of the Supreme Court deals with the most serious criminal cases such as murder, manslaughter and treason. When an accused has pleaded not guilty, the case is heard by a justice and a jury of 12 people drawn from the electoral roll.
The Court of Appeals
Appellate jurisdiction: The COA has the power to hear and determine appeals from the County Court and trial division of the Supreme Court.
The role of the judge
-Ensuring both parties obey rules of evidence and procedure in court
-Protect the rights of witnesses and victims when testifying
-Summing up evidence and explaining the law to the jury
The role of the Magistrate
-Oversee the conduct of a hearing for minor offences
-Determine the verdict of a case should the accused plead not guilty
-Determining an appropriate sanction that fits the offence
The role of the prosecution
-Present evidence at trial
-Determine which witnesses to call
-Start the trial by providing the judge + jury with an opening address
The difference between the standard and burden of proof
Meeting the burden and standard of proof is required to prove the guilt of the accused, finding suspicion BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The composition of the jury
Consists of people chosen at random from the electoral roll. Twelve (12) jurors are selected for criminal trials and possible fifteen (15) for special cases such as very long trials. The jury is essentially a fact-finding body.
Two strengths of the jury
Juries are impartial and independent: instructed to have unbiased, independent decision-making + X take in consideration personal characteristics of the accused such as their age, ethnicity, etc. Should only be bc of evidence if guilty
Juries spread the decision-making process, : spreads the decision-making process and acts to eliminate bias/corruption
Two weaknesses of the jury
Juries do not need to provide a reason for their decision; they don’t need to justify why, therefore a finding of guilt could be based upon biased attitudes or discrimination, but it will not be known since they dont have to justify their conclusions.
Jurors may not understand complex legal jargon/evidence: members of the jury are chosen from the electoral roll at random. as such, they are not trained or experienced in the law, t/f , jury may struggle to understand complex legal jargon and terminology that is used in court.
Precedent
a principle established in a legal case that should be followed by our courts in future cases where the material facts are similar.
Stare decisis
Latin for ; ‘let the decision stand’
whereby consistency is ensured through the following of previous decisions when similar matters arise in the future.
Ratio decidendi
Latin for ; ‘reason for the decision’
that is, the reasoning behind the decision the judge reached.
Obiter dicta
Latin for ; (singular) obiter dictum | ‘statements made by the way’
that is, comments made by the judge in a particular case that may be persuasive in guiding future cases
Outline what makes precedent binding
Binding precedent must be followed.
Because the legal principle was;
-Set by a higher court in the same court hierarchy and pertains to a matter of similar material fact
Outline what makes precedent persuasive
Persuasive precedent does not have to be followed.
Because the legal principle was;
-Set by another state or country (different court hierarchy)
-Set by a lower court in the same court hierarchy
-Pertains to different material facts
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Key facts
Mrs. Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer by a friend at a café . After drinking some, she discovered a decomposed snail inside the opaque bottle and subsequently fell ill, suffering from gastroenteritis and shock. Since the bottle was sealed and she had no way of inspecting its contents, she sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for negligence, claiming that he had failed to ensure the product was safe for consumption.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Issue
The legal issue in Donoghue v Stevenson was whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care to a consumer who had not purchased the product directly. Since Mrs. Donoghue had no contract with the manufacturer, the case questioned whether she could still sue for negligence based on the harm caused by the contaminated drink. The court had to decide if Stevenson, as the manufacturer, was legally responsible for ensuring the product was safe for all foreseeable consumers.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Decision
The House of Lords ruled in favor of Mrs. Donoghue, establishing that Stevenson owed a duty of care to consumers, even without a direct contract. The court held that manufacturers must take reasonable care to prevent harm to those who will ultimately use their products. This decision introduced the “Neighbour Principle,” stating that individuals must avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably foreseeably harm others. As a result, Mrs. Donoghue was allowed to pursue her negligence claim against Stevenson.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Outcome
The outcome of Donoghue v Stevenson was that Mrs. Donoghue was allowed to proceed with her negligence claim, but the case never went to a full trial because Stevenson passed away before it was resolved. It is believed that the case was settled out of court, though the exact details remain unknown. Despite this, the ruling established a landmark precedent in negligence law, shaping future cases on duty of care and product liability.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Key facts
Dr. Grant purchased woollen underwear from a retailer, which had been manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. The garments contained excess sulphite chemicals, which had not been properly removed during production. After wearing them, Dr. Grant developed severe dermatitis, leading him to sue the manufacturer for negligence, claiming they failed to ensure the product was safe for use.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Issue
The key legal issue was whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care to a consumer when there was no direct contract between them. The court had to decide whether the manufacturer was legally responsible for harm caused by a defective product, extending the principle from Donoghue v Stevenson beyond food and drink to other consumer goods.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Decision
The Privy Council ruled in favor of Dr. Grant, confirming that Australian Knitting Mills was negligent. The court applied the “Neighbour Principle” from Donoghue v Stevenson, establishing that manufacturers have a duty of care to ensure their products are safe for consumers.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Outcome
Dr. Grant was awarded damages for his injuries, reinforcing that manufacturers can be held liable for harm caused by defective products, even when sold through a retailer. This case expanded negligence law in Australia, strengthening consumer protection and establishing clear liability for unsafe goods.
Statutory interpretation
When judges apply or generate meaning for words within Acts (laws) made by parliament to resolve a dispute.
Reasons for statutory interpretation
-Unclear wording
-Changing nature of words
-To clarify words
Impacts of statutory interpretation
- A narrowing of the meaning of the term, whereby possible meanings are excluded and thus the scope of accepted interpretations is made smaller.
- A broadening of the meaning of the term, whereby the possible meanings are expanded to include more meanings or examples.
Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Key Facts
- Deing was wearing a belt with raised metal studs.
-Deing was arrested, charged and found guilty in the Magistrates’ Court for possessing a ‘regulated weapon’.
-Deing appealed in the Supreme Court.
Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Issue
-Deing was charged under section 6 of the ‘Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic)’.
- states it is illegal to ‘possess, carry or use any regulated weapon without lawful excuse’.
-The court had to interpret the words, ‘regulated weapon’ and determine if studded belts were included in that category
Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Decision
-‘Regulated weapon’ is a broad term covering a range of items.
-Justice Beach (Supreme Court), determined that a ‘regulated weapon’ should be defined as anything that is not commonly used for any other purpose than as a weapon.
-His belt was not found within the definition and his conviction was overturned
Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Significance
-The judge through his statutory interpretation of the ‘Control of Weapons Act’ , NARROWED the definition of ‘weapon’ by excluding items.
-clarified specific meanings of the words in the Act.
-created a precedent for similar, future cases.
