Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast federal and state courts system structure
Hierarchy of courts in australia
Compare and contrast state and federal court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Australian Court System
The Australian court system is structured as a hierarchy, meaning that some courts have more power than others. In this hierarchy there are two sections of courts; the state courts such as the supreme court, county court, court of appeal, magistrates court and specialised courts like children’s court for example and tribunals like VCAT all of these are set up under state legislation. The second section being federal courts such as the High court which comes under commonwealth legislation. So, depending on the crime committed and how serious or not it is, different courts in the hierarchy will deal with different cases.
The Federal Courts
There are three main divisions that sit at the federal court level:
The
…show more content…
Including appeals from Victorian courts and tribunals. The supreme court is split into two divisions’ the trail division and the court of appeal. The court of appeal is the highest division of the supreme court. They review and revise a lower courts decision on a matter to determine whether the trail was conducted fairly and if the law was applied correctly. They hear criminal and cases that was decided in the trail division of the supreme court and county court, but some civil cases can also come from the Magistrates’ court and from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The decision from the court of appeal may result in a retrial of the case or a decision that there wasn’t an error from the lower court’s decision, so their final position still stands. The trail division sits above the county court and below the court of appeal. They hear the most serious indictable offence, which include murder, manslaughter, treason and other major criminal matters. Their civil jurisdiction gives the ability to hear claims for an unlimited amount of damages above
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
The roots of Australian laws are similar to traditional Aboriginal laws, dating back to before the Norman Conquest in 1066, where each separate village had their own laws developed to their own customs. This changed however, after a centralized legal system was established after 1066. A common law was formed, that applied to all of England. This was later combined with equity law and mercantile law, which is the basis of Australian law today, known as ‘statute law’.
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.
The number of people that are detained within immigration detention in Australia changes constantly. As of 30th of November 2015, there were 1,852 people held in immigration detention facilities and 585 in community detention. 174 children were being detained in closed immigration detention facilities: 104 were being held in closed immigration detention facilities within Australia and 70 children were detained in the Regional Centre in Nauru. However, there was also 331 children in community detention in Australia. That’s over 400 children being held in detention centres. Australia’s refugee policy has no set time limit to how long a person may be held in immigration detention. The period of time in which an individual spends in detention may vary from a few
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.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
The following is an adjusted version of an argument I presented in Critical Thinking last semester. My opinion has not changed, just expanded.. :)
The US court system consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The trial court is the first to hear the facts of a case and has original jurisdiction. The appellate court hears cases whose resolution is disputed by the losing party in the trial court. The supreme or high court hears cases whose outcome is disputed by the losing party in the appellate court. The supreme or high court chooses which cases warrant a hearing. The federal and the state court system have the same basic structure. Each consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The Federal Court of Appeals has thirteen (13) circuits which cover most states except the District of Columbia. The federal system also has specialty courts such as the Court of Federal Claims and the United States Tax Court.
NSW Government 2014, Courts & Tribunal Services Attorney General & Justice, viewed 30 April 2014, .
For my research paper I decided to observe at the North Justice Center in Fullerton, CA for the morning session. My goal entering there was to watch the process of a criminal trial since I felt that would be the most interesting and would allow me the opportunity to witness all the working parts of our justice system in action. While waiting for the criminal trial to open its doors and start, I managed to come across a post- arraignment court, where I was able to watch a different side of our criminal justice system. This is the side that enforces the punishment and makes sure that restitution is paid for whatever crime was committed. By far the most interesting thing I took from this experience was the differences in how the judges conducted themselves in their courtrooms and the amount of discretion that they were allowed to use. For this paper I will be going over what I observed in both the post-arraignment court and the criminal trial and analyze my findings in a sociological context.
Based on Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 , the High Court is divided into few specialist divisions which are the King’s Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer and Admiralty Division.
The judiciary is an important branch of government that sets the standards necessary to ensure that society may thrive in a safe environment. Nevertheless, judicial systems vary from country to country, depending of the respective political, cultural, and historical situations. Such is the case for the judicial systems of Canada and the Republic of Belarus. Therefore, this paper will establish the similarities and differences between the structure and nature of the judicial system, the legal profession, as well as the structure and nature of the correctional systems of both countries. Additionally, this paper will use Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions to explain the similarities and differences between the two countries, in respect to the three