Highlighting Many of the Weaknesses in the Australian Legal System through the Chamberlain Case The case of Lindy Chamberlain was very significant in Australian legal history as it involved the conviction and imprisonment of an innocent person for infanticide. This is occurrence should never have taken place and demonstrated the weaknesses in the Australian legal system. A legal system is meant to be sturdy and never failing system that the public can put its trust ad faith in but this time it fell apart and wrongly convicted an innocent mother, wife and friend. Something needs to be done to ensure the unnecessary imprisonment of an innocent does not occur again. There were many issues in the legal system that let Lindy Chamberlain down. Firstly the expensive court system that disadvantages those who cannot afford the best. Secondly, the inadequacies of the police force. The third issue was the public bias and finally the contaminated jury. Cheap Lawyer ============ “Justice only comes by the expenditure of large amounts of money and support of many friends”.[1] This statement is true. Not many people in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that if you have the money to pay for a brilliant lawyer than you will have a good chance at winning any case. Not many people can afford to go as far in appealing as the Chamberlain’s did. Despite the money provided for them from the church, the Chamberlains could still not afford a good lawyer. Instead they could only hire a young lawyer from their Seventh Day Adventist group by the name of Stuart Tipple. Tipple was only a young man, a country lawyer and t... ... middle of paper ... ...etter. 1985-89, various. Published by Noni Hodgson Class Notes Paper: Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesaday April 10, 1984 --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] K.Crispin, The Crown vs Chamberlain 1980-1987, Albatross Books, Australia, 1987 [2]P.Ward. Azaria! What the Jury Were Not Told. Australia, 1984. pp74 [3]ibid., pp47 [4] ibid., pp46 [5] ibid., pp87 [6] ibid., pp90 [7] As stated by first coroner Barritt in the Lindy Chamberlain Case [8]P.Ward. Op.cit., pp35 [9] The first ambiguity came when Macknay (prosecuting lawyer) asked “you did not track in the night time only daytime?” Winmatti answered “no”. They apparently assumed Winmatti meant he searched during the day. But his answer meant he also searched during the night. Ibid., pp51
Since the dawn of time for a society to work it needs to have a level of structure that applies to everyone and is understood by everyone. Australian legal system is broad and complex. It is the nature of the encompassing laws and regulations which reflect how people, organisations and governments behave on the many different levels of operation and these are created to make sure that everyone understands their rights and obligations. There are two sources of Law in Australia: Statute Law regulated by Parliament and comprise of legislations and acts; and Judge-made Law or Common Law where decisions made by judges are based on previous cases.
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)
In theory all jury systems (which have existed for almost 800 years) are fair and just.
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.
Since the last execution in Australia in 1967 of Ronald Ryan and the abolition of capital punishment in Australia in 1973 imprisonment has been the only option as a sanction for murder. A survey conducted in 2009 demonstrated that a clear majority of Australians (64%) believed that imprisonment should be the punishment for murder as opposed to 23% stating the death penalty should be used and 13% did not wish to comment. The death penalty is not an effective punishment for all cases and there has not been any solid evidence stating that it is a more effective deterrent than imprisonment. Furthermore capital punishment possesses the risk of executing the innocent, which has happened or almost happened numerous times in the past such as Colin Ross. The death penalty is also a breach of the Universal Human Rights. Additionally although there is belief that detaining criminals actually costs taxpayers more due to court processes, the method of execution and many other factors. While imprisonment should be the highest sanction for crime, in some cases this is not effective, such as the case of Australian serial killer Peter Dupas. As a result, imprisonment is the only appropriate option for murder in majority of instances, however in some cases it is evident that capital punishment is necessary for the safety of society.
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.
trial of two men for the 1971 murder of Helen Betty Osborne in The Pas Manitoba.
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.
legal status will only force a judge to decide the issue later, costing your estate and family
The court system of any country is a fundamental aspect of the society. In this respect, there are no public institutions in Canada which are subject to public scrutiny like the court system. People expectations of how they are treated by others are guided by laws made by various levels of institutions of justice. The Canadian judicial system, particularly, has undergone major developments and challenges as well. This paper explores three published articles that report on the problem of patronage appointments what lies behind the confidence in the justice system and the relevance of gender and gender equality in the legal profession.
It is up to the judiciary to exercise according to the law. It would be without
important. All the little things add up. Inferior courts are like the housewives that don’t get
If a person has a problem, that needs to be addressed in a court venue, it is likely that person will
The same remedies are available to finance criminal prosecution as civil litigation. Commercial insurance policies could be exp...
afford a very good team of lawyers. An average person would have had much less