Court Observation Report
R v Christopher Cruzado
Hannah Finch
18652879
4/5/18 Table of Contents:
Table of Contents:
Court Observation Report R v Christopher Cruzado 1
Table of Contents: 2
Abstract/ Executive Summary 3
Introduction 3
Court hearing information. 3
Is the court process necessary? 3
Responsibility and interactions of legal persons within the court. 4
Simplicity of the court process. 5
Giving evidence in court. 5
Can the court process be improved? 6
Conclusion 6
Reference List 7
Abstract
The following report discusses, using both an observed court hearing and the expectation set by the court and society of the legal and court systems, the effectiveness of the court process within NSW and Australia. By observing and reviewing
…show more content…
In relation to Mr Christopher Cruzado’s hearing the court process ran quite smoothly and efficiently. At no point during the hearing was Mr Cruzado treated as if he was above the law or exempt from punishment. Even though this was the case Mr Cruzado was still allowed a complete, unbiased and fair hearing. He was prosecuted correctly and was given ample chance to have his case heard. Though through the presentation of admissible evidence by the police prosecutor to the court, Mr Cruzado was still found and proven guilty.
It was through the sentencing by the magistrate and the court that set the standard for our society and the general public, proving that the legal and justice system is balanced and strong. Thus, reassuring the community that Mr Cruzado’s blatant disregard for the law and also the safety of civilians will not go unnoticed or unpunished.
Upon the observation of Mr Cruzado’s case, and also with reference to Dicey’s ‘Rule of Law’ (Thomas 2000), I believe it to be a fair assessment that the court process used here in NSW and within Australia as a whole is both an efficient and effective process in determining the truth between the prosecution and defence, and thus the court process cannot truly be
Role of the Courts Firstly, the coroner’s court investigated the deaths of the accused’s family. The case was then heard in the local court. Due to the fact that the case was an indictable offence, the local court could not finalise the verdict. Therefore, the local court conducted a committal hearing, where the magistrate was to determine whether the prosecution evidence is capable of satisfying a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the offence.
This case also shows the effectiveness of the legal system in protecting individuals rights to not be tried or punished more than once under section 26. This is shown as the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions had urged that it would be oppressive as he already served 11 months of his sentence therefore the acquittal remained the
To measure if justice was achieved, the case must be reviewed with the three main characteristics of justice, Was it fair? Was it equal? Did both parties have equal access? with further analysis of the back story, charges and both parties cases considered with the characteristics of Justice an educated decision can be made whether the case R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638, achieved Justice Kieran Loveridge was convicted by the courts for an unprovoked attack on 18- year old Thomas Kelly at Kings Cross and assaults on Rhyse Saliba, Aden Gazi, Marco Compagnoni and Matthew Serrao. Kieran Loveridge was also found as intoxicated through the process of the assaults although there is no legitimate proof on how much Kieran Loveridge consumed, but
In the case of Tara Brown’s murder, various groups of individuals are affected. As well as maintaining principles of fair punishment and deterrence, the criminal justice system has to consider perceptions of the victim’s family (secondary victim), the community’s demand for crime prevention, and the offender’s rights to a fair court hearing. The most likely outcome is imprisonment for Lionel John Patea due to committing an indictable offence. It is important to note that if this was only a case of domestic abuse without murder, it would utilise more time, effort and expenses to come to a resolution. This is due to the different circumstances and degree of abuse that the judge has to assess.
Solutions were for state legal aid commissions to maintain ‘emergency funds’ for use in complex criminal cases and the amending of the Crimes Act 1958 to enable judges to directly order criminal counsel for the accused instead of ordering adjournment. The case of Dietrich v The Queen significantly changed legal aid provisions in trials across Australia and addressed the issue of underrepresentation in legal processes, further improving the deliverance of justice in Australian
The relevance of juries in the Australian criminal system given the expansion in modern technology has been questioned regarding the effectiveness of ordinary people judging complex legal issues. The jury system was developed in England between the 12th and 15th century, in a time when courts relied more on the theory of a jury judging its own peers. With complex evidence presented in courts and the advances in technology available to the average citizen, the use of the jury system has been reported to have problems regarding the comprehension and impartiality. There are many pros and cons to the jury system currently in use in our Australian legal system, for the jury system to be able to work coherently with our legal system these pros and
Nils Christie’s view on modern law is that due to specialization, victims have lost the right to participate in their trials. Lawyers are becoming too involved in cases, taking conflicts away from parties and turning them into property. Christie states there there is less attention focused on the effects on the victim and more focus on the criminal’s background. Christie also states that getting a court to function is difficult while there are specialists present. According to Christie, parties become uneasy with handling their own social conflicts where they know there are professionals present who they believe can do a better job.
The United States justice system is a complicated system. The justice system is the third branch of the government. This branch holds the responsibility to create and up hold laws. The justice system has a precise order of how things fall into place when a crime has been committed. The process to arrest an individual to the sentencing of that individual takes a bountiful amount of steps and procedures.
It was a sunny day in Red Hook Brooklyn. The suns rays were shining over the docks as the sounds of ships entering and exiting the port could be heard throughout the neighborhood. The serenity of the day was shattered when a cry was heard throughout the neighborhood; “Eddie Carbone!” The eerie silence following this shout is broken by the cries of Catherine and Beatrice Carbone. This day was the day that Mr. Eddie Carbone was slaughtered in the street.
In today’s society, law and its ever-changing nature is the pinnacle of our human relations. The extensive effect that the law has on humanity is something which greatly fascinates me. Historical affairs such as the London riots have informed me about the importance of law within our everyday lives, due to its ability to restore order. Harper Lee’s novel ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ captured me through the power and necessity of justice and defence which it portrays, regardless of social prejudices.
The term “reasonable person”, which was also known as the “reasonable man” in the past, is a prevalent and important term in criminal law legislatures in countries that have adopted the common law system. This is due to the fact that the law of murder and defences of duress, provocation, and self-defence rely on this standard. In common law countries, the use of the reasonable person standard is grounded upon the faith in a human being’s reason as the foundation of the law. However, it is believed that the usage of a hypothetical person may not be convenient in criminal law as it lacks accuracy and fair means to evaluate complex behaviour like the human behaviour. In this essay, I will identify the disadvantages of the reasonable person standard
R v Caldwell [1981] 1 All ER 961 James Caldwell had grievance against the owner of the hotel where he worked. So one night he got very drunk and set fire to the hotel. Caldwell was indicted upon two counts of arson. The second count was laid under section 1 (1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971-arson destroying property belonging to another. The first and more serious count was laid under section 1 (2) of the 1971- arson endangering life.
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,
REASONING BY ANALOGY AND INCREMENTALISM Reasoning by analogy is a pervasive feature of common-law cases. Every volume of reports contains countless examples. This is not at all surprising. Analogy is an honorable, typical device of common sense reasoning, and many legal systems assign to analogy a formal place in their jurisprudence.
In March 1994, the Lord Chancellor selected Lord Woolf to improve access to justice by reviewing the rules of civil procedure . Into the civil courts of Wales and England, wide-ranging reforms were introduced; new Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) intended to pulverize the problems recognized by Lord Woolf— predominantly the problems of delay, costs and complexity (because of excessive adversarial culture) . The entire ethos of Woolf reforms was focused on promoting settlement between parties at dispute, and avoiding litigation (to curb costs). It is popularly debated that the Woolf reforms were a major success, delivering justice by reducing costs and delays, this paper will examine the validity of these claims. Woolf report, Chapter 10; propsed