Part 1: Appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland Prosecution counsel submissions: 1. Pursuant to section 561 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act), the Prosecution counsel seeks an appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland, from the decision of the Industrial Magistrates Court given on 11/10/2017. 2. The grounds of appeal are: - The learned Industrial Magistrate erred in concluding there was no case to answer in respect to an offence under subsection 534(2) of the Act - The learned Industrial Magistrate erred in encouraging the defence counsel to put forward a no case submission - The learned Industrial Magistrate erred in not providing reasoning for the decision. Particulars Ground 1: The learned …show more content…
Whilst the evidence is unable to directly prove the elements, it is capable of enabling its existence to be inferred beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that when assessing the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Magistrate did not consider the evidence ‘at its highest’ and ‘without regard to… explanations… consistent to the defendant’s innocence. Even if the evidence was thought to be ‘tenuous or inherently weak or vague’ or so ‘contradictory that the [learned Magistrate] would not have been able to, at that stage make any finding of fact in favour of the Prosecution – as there was some evidence which supported the prosecution case, [the Magistrate] should have in law, convicted that the trial proceed. It is reasonably assumed that, following the evidence in chief of the prosecution, a person of ordinary fairness and reason could be satisfied on the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence presented inferred guilt of the requisite …show more content…
Ground 2: The learned Industrial Magistrate erred in encouraging the defence counsel to put forward a no case submission The prosecution submits that the learned Magistrate encouraged the defence council to adopt a no case submission which, in light of the facts, miscarried the trial. Trials must appear to be impartial and fair, it is argued that the Magistrate undermined this fundamental principle by stating to the defence ‘[n]aturally, I envisage that you want to make a submission on a no case to answer’, which when the defence had not made any commentary to this effect prior, suggested the Magistrate deemed there to be no merit in the prosecution case and the accused be acquitted. Whilst there may be entitlement for a Magistrate to intervene when a counsel is deemed inept, there was nothing to suggest that the defence was incompetent, and as earlier submitted, there was remarkable prima facie evidence to infer the accused had committed an offence under subsection 532(2) of the Act. The prosecution therefore contends that there was a remarkable level of intervention and bias toward the defence resulting in an unfair trial and miscarriage of
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Finally, the respondent submitted that without any contradiction from the appellant that any breach of duty of care could not be sustained and any issue of liability unlike in Jones v Dunkel would have no basis.
Counsel of the appellant sought a certificate from the judge to bring an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal against the admissibility of the coincidence evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling the coincidence evidence inadmissible. It adopted a different approach than that in NSW in reviewing the ruling of the Evidence.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
Consequently, your honour, under section 16 (A) sub-section 2 of the Bail Act 2012 my client has shown cause why his detention is unjustified. Therefore, my
These problems have been highlighted by Sheriff Maciver who stated in a government document that “There is absolutely no doubt that the existence of a third verdict causes confusion for juries…this is a real problem which regularly requires to be dealt with” This view is echoed by the Victim Support Scotland who further call the ‘not proven’ verdict “confusing” This shambolic verdict has now also been described as “illogical, confusing and potentially stigmatising. ” It is now time for the legal hierarchy to surly concede that the ‘not proven’ verdict has passed its sell by date and needs to be removed from Scotland’s already crumbling out of date legal
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
...T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of retrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226.
...tood. This problem has persisted through many cases, clearly highlighting the lack of expertise of juries, and if they do not understand the process and basic rules, then they cannot be a reliable body in determining innocence. Jurors incapability of following evidence inevitably leads to guess work with jury’s finding defendants guilty because ‘he looked like he did it’ and ‘he looks like a nonce so he must of done it’. Moreover, cases have been reported of incredulous juries using absurd methods to ascertain a verdict, like in R v Young 1995, where a Ouija Board was used to determine if the defendant was guilty or not. It is clear that it would be better and far more effective to abolish the jury system, and leave the experts and qualified legal professionals to try defendants, as they understand the process and possess the expertise to make balanced decisions.
... In a speech to the House of Lords in 1844 Lord Denman remarked: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will. be a delusion, a mockery and a snare. The question of juror competence remains a recurrent feature in both the research and policy. literature (Horowitz et al., 1996; Penrod & Heuer, 1997). Indeed, in the. 1998 the Home Office invited commentary on whether an alternative to the traditional jury system was appropriate for cases of serious fraud.
Their power of a verdict according to conscience is enshrined as a bulwark against oppressive measures of the state. Lord Devlin may be deemed to be somewhat misty-eyed in his confidence in the "twelve good men". Since the 1970s, faith in the jury system has gradually dissolved. Successive governments have sought to restrict the use of jur... ... middle of paper ... ...
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
... up with a verdict for the accused person (Lamb, 2013). This is because the jury is filled with laymen who do not have any understanding of the law, and if they are allowed to deliberate on the evidence produced in court, then they may be misguided and may at many times find the accused person innocent while in the real sense they were guilty.
...n of legally obtained evidence and statements. Each and every person involved in the process of the evidence collection and processing must be available for trial. If one of these parties is not available, it may cause some doubt in the juror’s mind, as to what was done with that piece of evidence. The case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion if any piece of this investigation is not followed by using established guidelines, the outcome will not lead to the successful conviction.