To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The structure of criminal courts is divided into lower criminal courts, such as the local courts, Children’s court, and Coroner’s court, and higher criminal courts, like the District Court and the Supreme Court. Observing proceedings at the Local, District, and Supreme Courts for three days revealed various aspects of the criminal justice system. The administration, processes, and practices of criminal trials differ significantly depending on the level of the criminal court being observed.
Observing the operations of both courts highlighted the disparities between summary proceedings and trials involving indictments.
The cases studied supported the notion of a "two tiers of justice" system. Additionally, the judicial role was found to be intriguing, particularly the extensive discretion wielded in the Local Courts and to some extent in the District Court, especially in instances where there was no jury involved.
McBarnet's discussion centers around the distinction between the higher courts, like the District and Supreme courts, which are designed for public perception of justice through elaborate courtrooms, attire, and formalities.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Discretion
4.9 (984)
“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”
Conversely, the lower courts prioritize control and handle the majority of cases, with only a small percentage appearing in higher courts. In 2003-2004, 97% of cases were concluded in lower courts while only 3% reached higher courts.
Lower criminal courts – Lack of legal procedure was evident at the local courts, where the waiting room was packed with individuals summoned for their hearings. The atmosphere was chaotic and bustling, with restless individuals eager to have their cases addressed. Despite most cases being scheduled to start at 10am, there was no indication of how long each matter would last, resulting in potentially hours of waiting time for those seeking resolution.
Mack and Anleu emphasize the importance of time management and completing daily tasks.
The local courts were found to be less formal than anticipated, with magistrates taking time to explain cases to law students, deviating from the formal and ritualistic setting described by Pat Carlen in her study of Magistrates Courts in England and Scotland.
According to McBarnet, the lower courts often do not adhere to the principles of "due process" and justice. This was evident in a specific case observed in the Local Court, R v Sean Robert Kerr, where the atmosphere was casual and the magistrate and prosecutor continuously discussed the case details and evidence admissibility. The accused was charged with carrying a knife in a public place, but the seriousness of the offense was downplayed to support efficiency, as highlighted in McBarnet's analysis.
Each time the prosecutor made a claim, the magistrate would inquire about the source of the evidence, in line with their duty to establish if there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial as mandated by s 62 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The shortage of staff, including a court clerk, became apparent when the magistrate allowed the prosecutor to present evidence at the bench. This instance exemplifies the procedures of a committal hearing and showcases how judicial discretion plays a role in determining whether a case should be brought to trial.
During court visits, other cases were seen that highlighted the judicial process in the Local Courts. While some cases involving minor offenses like traffic violations and petty theft seemed trivial, others such as domestic violence and minor assault charges were considered significant to the parties involved. It is crucial not to oversimplify the lower courts' processes as being solely trivial.
Although the local courts prioritize speed and efficiency, strict legality is still respected. The emphasis on evidence and the burden on prosecutors to provide proof upholds key components of the criminal justice system. In contrast, the higher criminal court, known as the District Court, exhibits noticeable differences from the Local Courts. While not delving into specific court structures, the District Court appears to align more closely with the traditional framework of a standard courtroom.
The larger courtrooms with additional facilities, where barristers and magistrates wear wigs and robes, seem to immediately embody the concept of justice. It is fascinating to see how appearances alone can create an atmosphere that suggests justice will be served. Defendants sit in the dock with a corrections officer nearby, a difference from local courts where defendants typically sit near their lawyers. A comparison can be drawn between the judge's role in cases with and without a jury present.
Having a jury trial is considered a fundamental aspect of our criminal justice system, symbolizing democracy and ensuring fairness in trials. It's worth noting that most criminal cases are handled in lower courts where juries aren't present, highlighting the "two tiers" analysis upheld by higher courts which benefit from jury trials, a crucial element of justice ideology. For example, in R v Veronica Salas Collard, the jury consisted of eight men and four women from diverse backgrounds.
This indicates that promoting diversity, rather than uniformity, is key to a group's ability to be fair. In jury trials, the judge's role is minimized as the jury is solely responsible for deciding the case's facts and the guilt or innocence of the accused. In a District Court observation of R v Jessica Nguyen, the jury took on the responsibility of hearing evidence. During the trial, the jury was adjourned and then asked to rewatch portions of the police interview tape with the defendant. The Judge then inquired if there was any additional evidence they wanted to review.
In the case of R v Danny Price, every new piece of evidence submitted to the judge was also presented to the jury. During one day of proceedings, photographs and diagrams were shown to the jury, with the judge asking if the evidence was clear. This highlights the importance of the jury in a criminal trial. Bail and appeal hearings were also watched, showing judicial discretion in action. Unlike during jury trials, the judge had full control over deciding whether bail or an appeal should be granted.
Section 26 of the Bail Act 1978 discusses the district court's authority to provide bail. In the case of R v Steven Astill, the defendant, charged with fraud, was granted bail under the condition that he regularly report to his local police station. This highlighted the judiciary's power in legal proceedings. Despite legislation aimed at ensuring sentencing consistency, judicial discretion may sometimes deviate from strict legality. Nevertheless, the operations and procedures of the district court's criminal trials tended to prioritize justice over rigid legalities.
Through a three-day observation of criminal justice proceedings, it became evident how the system operates. The distinction between lower and higher courts, as highlighted in McBarnet's "two tiers" analysis, was apparent. Lower courts dealt with minor issues, prioritizing efficiency, while higher courts upheld traditional views of the justice system.
Contrasting Criminal Court Systems: Lower vs. Higher Courts. (2016, Sep 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/court-report-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
