EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCESS IN ACHIEVING JUSTICE.

Elements of the process which has controversy surrounding them E.g. interrogation on the stand

E.g. provocation- application of a defence use of plea bargaining to lessen the charge NOTE: sentencing is not Topic sentence Highlighting what it is, describing what it is (3 sentence max) Effectiveness of the criteria linking it to justice media or case to support Last sentence should include your judgement Is it logical, check the structure Write it and read it How it works media or case Case is evidence of this achievement of justice/ or not, WHEN LOOKING AT A MEDIA ARTICLE WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CASE, HOW IT SUPPORTS YOUR ARGUMENT Positive aspect, significant, v It is effective blah blah blah, however More evaluation Be clear TRIAL PROCESS ONLY EACH POINT AT LEAST ONE CASE AND ONE ARTICLE NICHOLAS COWDRY 3. Criminal trial process court jurisdiction the adversary system legal personnel: magistrate, judge, police prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecution, Public Defenders pleas, charge negotiation legal representation, including legal aid burden and standard of proof use of evidence, including witnesses defences to criminal charges: complete defences partial defences to murder the role of juries, including verdicts

Plan:

Intro: The legal system is not perfect and has many flaws and although there need to have constant review. Currently the criminal trial process has many areas which have been under the spotlight due to contentious issues regarding its ability to effectively achieve justice. Australias use of the adversarial system, plea bargaining, juries and use of defences has come under attack due to increasing outrage from the community. Areas of the trial process have been criticised for the lack of justice being served.

POINT ONE: the use of defences in reducing the sentencing Losing provocation defence could harm abused women, 30/08/2011, Josephine Tovey, Director of Public Prosecutions, Lloyd Babb, SC, called for its abolition, agreeing that it engendered a ''culture of blaming the victim'' , But the state's DPP said there were enough cases to justify abolishing the law, stating the partial defence of self-defence, with some amendments, could instead be used by women who killed their violent partner, even if the abuser did not pose an immediate threat

''Words alone should not amount to provocation, no matter the intensity, ferocity or malice,'' he said. ''For goodness sake I would like to think in the 21st century we are beyond the fact that if adultery occurs in a marriage or between partners, that is not sufficient reason in itself to take someone's life.'' provocation is a Taliban excuse

Some argue that use of defences is represents the acceptance of the murder

POINT TWO: plea bargaining, reducing sentencing Crimes are may go unpunished or that the admitted crime is insufficiently punished May result in an accused pleading guilty to a crime for which they are innocent May lead to bullying or manipulation of the accused to forfeit their right to a trial Prosecutors may threaten more serious charges to intimidate the accused to plead guilty to the lesser charge No consideration to the victim

POINT THREE: the jury, do not have the experience or knowledge or lack of -

Jurors do not understand instructions given to them by judges with particular difficulty in concepts like reasonable doubt, intent or presumption of innocence A return to village life: internet bursts the bubble protecting juries, 16/12/2011, SMH Richard Ackland expert evidence is too complex for a judge, let alone a jury; so too evidence about accounting and market
transactions; fewer and fewer people actually want to serve on a jury, and many have worked out how to avoid the task; juries don't give reasons, so no one has much of a clue whether they understood the case

correctly; every other decision maker has to provide reviewable reasons, but when it comes to a citizen's liberty, reasons are not required; judges are accountable, jurors are not. McClellan attributes it to the possibility ''judges are not so easily swayed by the rhetoric of the skilful advocate'' Multiple trial judges sitting in panels or lay assessors deliberating alongside judges are among the ways to achieve the right balance and are used in other civilised corners of the globe.

POINT FOUR: the adversarial system, rich can hire the more experience and better lawyers, people who are not either cannot afford a lawyer or hirer cheaper lawyers, although there is LegalAID it is not available to everyone as it is means, and jurisdiction tested, must plead guilty
The adversary system is slow which means that too many people are denied justice for too long because the adversary system tends to lengthen the trial process. Justice delayed is justice denied! This system is expensive. The adversary nature of our trial system also requires litigants to have legal representation. The high cost of legal advice and legal representation can seriously hinder those who cannot afford it. High costs may prevent some people from enforcing rights they may have or it may force them to economise on the presentation of their case. As such, the adversary system tends to favour those who can afford better legal representation. Some parties may be disadvantaged by not being able to afford legal rep or by hiring lawyers with inferior courtroom skills. This may mean that vital evidence which needs to be drawn out by questioning may not be revealed in the trial and as such, the truth may not always emerge. There is an emphasis on oral evidence. This can mean that witnesses can be confused by highly skilled lawyers and thus, their evidence may be seen as being unreliable. Witnesses also need to rely on their memory of events, which often occurred some time ago because of delays in getting a case to trial. Delays in the system are a constant problem for those seeking resolution of disputes. In one continuous trial, the amount of information to be absorbed by a judge or jury can be quite extensive. Jurors can be confused by technicalities associated with the rules of evidence and with the technical nature of information provided by expert witnesses. If this information is not understood by jurors, it may not be given sufficient acknowledgment and consideration.

Legal Representation: Dietrich v The Queen, 1992, established a limited right to legal representation in Australia, Not everyone has the finances or skill to seek proper legal representation, result in injustices in the courtroom and denial of access to a fair trial Legal Aid Commission created under, Legal Aid Commission Act 1979 (NSW) Provides legal assistance and representation to people who are socially and economically disadvantaged Whats wrong with the Legal System Originally broadcast: 24/05/2010 Evan Whitton, writer and journalist our adversarial system of criminal justice cannot sustain a case brought by someone with marked imperfections. Read more:

The criminal trial process in NSW is unable to effectively

BIBLOGRAPHY: WEBSITE: - Imperfect victim of imperfect legal system, Richard Ackland, 26/08/2011, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/imperfect-victim-of-imperfect-legal-system20110825-1jcbt.html (accessed on 23/11/2012) - Losing provocation defence could harm abused women, Josephine Tovey, 30/08/2012, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/losing-provocation-defence-could-harm-abused-women20120829-25148.html - Provocation is a Taliban excuse, Josephine Tovey, 29/-8/2012, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/provocation-is-a-taliban-excuse-20120828-24yvh.html -