Criminal Law Court Observation
Court Observation Report
1. Introduction In the Australian legal justice system, with the increasing demand to expand summary jurisdiction, there has been a controversial issue as to which process is more appropriate to deliver justice to public as well as litigants; efficiency process or due process. While the former focuses on informality and efficiency, which requires judicial officers to struggle to manage limited time created by long case lists, the latter emphasizes formality and due process, which is commonly seen on higher courts. Grounded on the characteristics of respective courts mentioned above, this observation at the New South Wales Local Court and Supreme Court during three days aimed at comparing one proceeding with the other.
2. Local Court: Efficiency In the courtroom for sentencing at the Downing Centre Local Court, It was a wide range of cases dealt with by the Magistrate that were the most impressive and surprising. The Magistrate sat on the top seat without juries and decided all questions of laws and facts. The Magistrate, even though so busy, treated a large number of documents given by clerks calmly as if finishing such many cases in a day, consisting of mainly minor crimes, was natural. At a glance, it was definite that the Magistrate worked in pursuit of efficiency, which includes speed and finality. In accordance with Doreen McBarnet, due process has been excluded from the lower courts because the process is not necessary, grounded on the two facts – “first, the offences and the penalties are too trivial” and “second, the issues and processes are such that the niceties of law and lawyers are irrelevant”. Surprisingly, as reflecting his argument, it took each defendant, at most, five minutes to be sentenced. In fact, most cases were decided within 30 seconds, especially in case the Magistrate determined adjournment. Only two cases were protracted for 10 minutes. It was even suspected, when the vast majority of criminal matters
1. Introduction In the Australian legal justice system, with the increasing demand to expand summary jurisdiction, there has been a controversial issue as to which process is more appropriate to deliver justice to public as well as litigants; efficiency process or due process. While the former focuses on informality and efficiency, which requires judicial officers to struggle to manage limited time created by long case lists, the latter emphasizes formality and due process, which is commonly seen on higher courts. Grounded on the characteristics of respective courts mentioned above, this observation at the New South Wales Local Court and Supreme Court during three days aimed at comparing one proceeding with the other.
2. Local Court: Efficiency In the courtroom for sentencing at the Downing Centre Local Court, It was a wide range of cases dealt with by the Magistrate that were the most impressive and surprising. The Magistrate sat on the top seat without juries and decided all questions of laws and facts. The Magistrate, even though so busy, treated a large number of documents given by clerks calmly as if finishing such many cases in a day, consisting of mainly minor crimes, was natural. At a glance, it was definite that the Magistrate worked in pursuit of efficiency, which includes speed and finality. In accordance with Doreen McBarnet, due process has been excluded from the lower courts because the process is not necessary, grounded on the two facts – “first, the offences and the penalties are too trivial” and “second, the issues and processes are such that the niceties of law and lawyers are irrelevant”. Surprisingly, as reflecting his argument, it took each defendant, at most, five minutes to be sentenced. In fact, most cases were decided within 30 seconds, especially in case the Magistrate determined adjournment. Only two cases were protracted for 10 minutes. It was even suspected, when the vast majority of criminal matters
Bibliography: David Brown, David Farrier, Sandra Egger, Luke McNamara & Alex Steel, Criminal Law: Material and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2010). Kathy Mack and Sharyn Roach Anleu, ‘Getting Through The List’: Judgecraft and Legitimacy in the Lower Courts (2007). Andrew Sanders & Richard Young, Criminal Justice (Oxford 3rded, 2007). Kathleen Daly, Andrew John Goldsmith, Mark Israel, Aims of the Criminal justice system (Lawbook Co.,3rd ed, 2006). Andrew, Ashworth, Mike, Redmayne, The Criminal Process(Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2005) [ 1 ]. David Brown, David Farrier, Sandra Egger, Luke McNamara & Alex Steel, Criminal Law: Material and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2010) 228. [ 2 ]. Kathy Mack and Sharyn Roach Anleu, ‘Getting Through The List’: Judgecraft and Legitimacy in the Lower Courts (2007) 16 Social Legal Studies 342. [ 3 ]. Kathy Mack and Sharyn Roach Anleu, ‘Getting Through The List’: Judgecraft and Legitimacy in the Lower Courts (2007) 16 Social Legal Studies 347. [ 4 ]. David Brown, David Farrier, Sandra Egger, Luke McNamara & Alex Steel, Criminal Law: Material and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2010) 229. [ 5 ]. David Brown, David Farrier, Sandra Egger, Luke McNamara & Alex Steel, Criminal Law: Material and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2010) 154. [ 6 ]. Andrew Sanders & Richard Young, Criminal Justice (Oxford 3rded, 2007) 485. [ 7 ]. Kathleen Daly, Andrew John Goldsmith, Mark Israel, Aims of the Criminal justice system (Lawbook Co.,3rd ed, 2006) 273. [ 8 ]. David Brown, David Farrier, Sandra Egger, Luke McNamara & Alex Steel, Criminal Law: Material and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process of New South Wales (The Federation Press, 5th ed, 2010) 231. [ 9 ]. Andrew Ashworth, Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process(Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2005) 38. [ 10 ]. Andrew, Ashworth, Mike, Redmayne, The Criminal Process(Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2005) 48.