Criminal Trial Process Essay

1178 Words3 Pages

The law balances the rights of victims, offenders and society to a certain extent in the criminal trial process. Mechanisms such as the use of evidence and witnesses, charge negotiations and juries are ways in which the legal system attempts to balance the rights of victims, offenders and society in the criminal trial process. Whilst they are effective in balancing rights, there are limitations to these mechanisms such as false witness statements, pressure to agree with charge negotiations and issues of bias with juries. The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and …show more content…

However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of domestic violence to record their statements as their evidence instead of giving oral evidence in court. It also allows police to use body-mounted cameras when entering domestic violence scenes and record the situation to be used as evidence in court. Victims of sexual assault also have the right to have special arrangements made for them when they are giving evidence. Although the law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims, issues have risen regarding the effects of social media on court evidence and witness statements. According to an ABC News article (23 January 2013), social media is said to be “tainting evidence.” Tony Kerin, president of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, stated that “social media is …show more content…

It is a controversial strategy where the offender negotiates with the prosecutor and agrees to plead guilty to a charge in favour of a lesser charge. Charge negotiations are effective to a certain extent in balancing the rights of victims, offenders and society. It is effective for all parties in terms of resource efficiency. It is also effective in protecting the rights of society as it increases criminal convictions. Whilst charge negotiations lessen the sentence for the offender, it does not necessarily balance their rights as it puts pressure on them to plead guilty, which contravenes their right to a trial. They are also ineffective in balancing the rights of victims and society as crimes may go unpunished or inadequately punished. For example, in the R v Loveridge [2013] case, Kieran Loveridge was sentenced to only four years after pleading guilty to manslaughter as well as other common assault charges. This caused an outrage amongst Thomas Kelly’s family and the public (The Australian, 9 November 2013). Victims may also feel pressured to accept a charge negotiation by the prosecution, which violates their individual rights and their rights to a trial. In the Sydney Morning Herald article ‘NSW Liberals urge plea bargain review’, four individuals pleaded guilty to a downgraded charge of indecent assault after originally being charged to four

Open Document