The Australian Justice system is bound by certain rules and regulations which are integral to its role on society within Australia and its differences to the rest of the world, except for one other country whereby it follows suit. Though the laws of the Australian colonies fluctuated from the United Kingdom in countless respects from the commencements of settlement, the underlying configurations of thought mirror the common law institution as received from Britain. From those essential patterns we took from the United Kingdom we gained a legal system of which bases itself on the courtroom and the societies who run it. When it comes to the final say though these configurations we have somewhat gained from giving full reign to one individual which is the focal point of any case, he/her is the reviewer, the evaluator and the arbiter or more commonly known as the judge.
This essay proposes discussions that judges are unquestionably an integral part of the Australian Justice system and divulge the key concepts and issues relating to a judges role. The existent question though is that judges are merely meant to interpret the law, granted most people distinguish or assume they make new law at their own will and on their own merit. This essay will be taking examples and complications from Australian cases and will be implementing the Harvard referencing structure.
Before the proposed question can be properly answered, the imperative dynamics of the courtroom must be discussed. The basic elements of a judge; a judge is a ceremonial overseer of main accounts in the court room. His/hers main contribution is to instil proper knowledge of specific information if need be. Essentially Judges exercise, to their fullest extent, judicial power. ...
... middle of paper ...
...
Brennan, Justice F.G. (1992) unpublished paper delivered in Canberra on 16 July to a Human Rights Conference and referred to in Connolly P. and Hulme S. (1993) The High Court of Australia in Mabo AMEC Leederville.
Constitutional Commission 1988, Final Report, AGPS, vol 1, chapt 6. Canberra.
Green, L 2012 ‘The concept of law’, (3rd edn), Clarendon law series, CPI group ltd, Croydon, Great Britain.
Kirby, M. (1993) "Looking to the courts to fight political paralysis" Sydney Morning Herald 26th October.
Mason, A 1993, ‘The Role of the Courts at the Turn of the Century’, Fifth Annual Oration in Judicial Administration, 3rd edn, Journal of Judicial Administration 156.
Mason, Sir Anthony (1987) "Future Directions in Australian Law" Monash University aw Review
Stephen, N 1989, ‘Judicial Independence’, Inaugural Annual Oration in Judicial Administration, AIJA Melbourne.
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
It would not be inconsistent with the principle of equality before the law that, where members of the Aboriginal race have special needs, those should be recognised by special rules laid down by the law. Further, the law is flexible enough to allow the courts to consider the special situation of an Aboriginal party where that is relevant. As the courts have recognised, the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders presents particular difficulties. Judges, in an attempt to do justice in discharging the difficult role of sentencing tribal and semi-tribal Aboriginal persons, have gone further. Clearly the ordinary criminal law is capable of facing these difficulties. It is neither necessary, nor desirable, to apply to the Aboriginal peoples the rules of their customary law rather than the general law. The attempt to uphold Aboriginal customary law is one aspect of the notion that the Aboriginal peoples will benefit if they continue to be treated as a class separate from the rest of the community, which must necessarily be a dependent and disadvantaged class.
They weigh the evidence and apply the law. In the court system, criminal law is interpreted by a jury who are seen as expressing the sense of justice of ordinary men and women. Juries date back to the Middle Ages in England, and while membership, role, and importance have changed throughout the ages, they were part of the system of England’s Common Law. The purpose of the jury system was to ensure the civil rights of the ordinary citizen. It is important to remember that at the time, ordinary people had few rights.
From the aforementioned cases, it is evident to see that the Australian legal system has not always been fair and just, however, over time it has been shaped and moulded to clearly represent what is now considered to be fair and just in our society. From the procedures and presumptions of how the legal system is administered to the law and regulations which determine what is the crime and punishment – these are based on the transparency, equality, freedom from bias, human rights, and established set of rules adhere to the justice and fairness of the legal system.
The term “Court Hierarchy” is a very important word in the law world in modern society. It’s definition gives a very clear and concise meaning to the law industry. The phrase can be split into two words to be easily dealt and understood. The word “court” is from a Greek derivative “cohors” or “cohort” meaning courtyard or retinue. It’s definition from the dictionary certainly portrays the law as a very important and distinguished practice. “a. A person or body of persons whose task is to hear and submit a decision on cases at law.” “b. The building, hall, or room in which such cases are heard and determined.” The word, “hierarchy”, however, has a more powerful and specific relation to the law world. It is a Greek derived word and originally came from the word “hierarkhia”, meaning the rule of a high priest. “a. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above.” “b. A series in which each element is graded or ranked.” By placing these two words together, it has a responsibility of giving the public a definition of one of the most important practices portrayed by the Court System of Australia. Court Hierarchy is the term given to the system in which the Courts of Australia are split into different levels to deal with different matters by different levels of severity.
In order to understands how and why the high court affects all Australian lives its necessary for us to know the role of the high court of Australia in the Australian legal system.
Wolfe, Christopher. The Rise of Modern Judicial Review: From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1986.
Legal system is a comprehensive term that is used to confirm the existence of the law; it also explains the law-making process and how this is enforced on everyone. The Australian legal system regulates all level of governments, organisations, and all people whether they are Australian born or have migrated here, and they must obey Australia’s regulations. The legal system here was developed from the United Kingdom’s legal system, as Australia was a colony of the British. At a glance, the British government granted restricted rights to their colonies, including Australia to set local government system. This was intended to developed laws in local area, also to deal with specific situation at that time. As a result, the legal system in each of the colonies started to develop separately. According to Carvan J (2010) the Australian law is adopted from several sources, including the rules of equity, parliamentary laws, delegated legislations, judge-made laws, and international laws. (Austrlian Legal System, 2007)
The criminal justice system is composed of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. The way criminal justice systems work depends on the jurisdiction that is in charge. Different jurisdictions have different ways of managing criminal justice processes. The components of the criminal justice system are law enforcement, prosecution, defense attorneys, courts, and corrections.
The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on a foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions
Kate Malleson remarks that even the current recruitment pool which is dominated by middle aged successful barristers does seem to evoke John Griffith's theory of judicial conservatism. However, the apparently conservative composition of the judiciary does not necessarily mean that it gives preference to traditional views. In contrast to the US Supreme Court, there is little concern whether a UK judge’s social and political views a...
One of the features of the Australian constitution is that is it structured in a way that theoretically reflects the rule of law. This is reflected through the ‘separation of powers’ doctrine, which is assumed to be a fair structure of government. Its principles suggest that power does not lie with one branch of government, but is spread out amongst three (legislative, executive and judicial).
Ronald Dworkin has become one of the most influential legal philosophers over the last century providing a ‘sophisticated alternative to legal positivism’. Dworkin is a non-orthodox natural law theorist, his account of law centres on his theory of adjudication. A key aspect of adjudication is the concept of Law as Integrity. However, some commentators suggest that Dworkin’s ideal does not reflect the reality of judicial interpretation. In this paper I will outline Dworkin’s ‘law as integrity’ and then highlight some of the criticisms that appear to generate doubt over his writings as a convincing model. I will conclude that whilst his main opponents offer some substantial critiques of Dworkin’s theory of ‘law as integrity’, Dworkin does establish a convincing theory that tries to bridge the gap on judicial discretion that other notable theorists, including H.L.A. Hart, fail to achieve.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...