Unit 3 SAC 1A Flashcards
Rights of victim and accused, VLA, CLCs, plea negotiations
describe criminal justice system
A set of processes and institutions used to investigate and determine criminal cases
Purpose:
-decide whether an accused is guilty of an offence
-impose a sanction in cases where an accused has been found guilty or pleaded guilty to committing an offence
describe summary offences
Summary offences are minor criminal offences usually heard in the Magistrate’s court where there is no option for trial by jury. Most summary offences are specified in legislation like the Summary Offences Act 1966, such as drink driving offences and common assault. Summary offences can be heard without the accused being present and can be prosecuted by Victoria police
describe indictable offences
Indictable offences are criminal acts that are serious in nature such as arson or murder. Indictable offences are generally heard by a judge and jury in the County and Supreme court when a plea of not guilty is entered. The jury must determine whether the accused is guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and then an appropriate sentence is administered by the judge or justice. Most indictable offences are prosecuted by the Office of Public Prosecutions.
indictable offences heard summarily
These are serious offences, but they can be heard in the Magistrate’s court as if they were minor offences. Statute determines whether an indictable offence can be dealt with as a summary offence. e.g. Schedule 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (vic) lists a number of these offences, including motor vehicle theft. The accused will usually choose to have an offence heard summarily, mainly because it is quicker and cheaper to hear the case in the Mag court and the maximum penalty that can be handed down is less than if it were an indictable offence. The Magistrate’s court can only impose a max 2 years imprisonment for a single offence, and max 5 years imprisonment for multiple offences. However, both the accused as well as the court must agree that the offence is appropriate to be heard summarily.
define the burden of proof
The obligation of a party to prove the facts of a case. The burden of proof typically rests with the party who initiates the action, the plaintiff in a civil dispute and the prosecution in a criminal case.
explain the burden of proof sample answer
The burden of proof refers to which party is responsible for proving the facts of a case. In criminal cases, this responsibility lies with the prosecution. The rationale behind this is that the state possesses considerable resources and authority, which can create an imbalance of power compared to an individual defendant. By requiring the prosecution to establish guilt, the legal system seeks to address this power disparity and safeguard against the potential misuse of state resources against individuals. Additionally, the burden of proof reinforces the principle of presumption of innocence. In some cases, the burden of proof can be reversed, such as when the accused pleads a defense of mental impairment. Furthermore, in some drug possession cases, the accused may be required to prove the drugs were not in their possession.
define the standard of proof
The degree to which the facts of a case must be proven in court. The standard of proof applicable in a criminal proceeding is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
explain the standard of proof sample answer
The term refers to the level of certainty or strength of evidence required to prove a case. In criminal cases, the prosecution must establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard means that no reasonable doubt can exist based on the evidence presented. While jurors or a magistrate may have fanciful or imaginary doubts, such doubts do not affect the verdict. To prove guilt in a crime, there must be no other logical or reasonable conclusion than that the accused is guilty. Indictable offenses are tried in the County or Supreme Court, where a jury must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In contrast, summary offenses are heard in the Magistrates’ Court, where a magistrate determines guilt. If the burden of proof is on the accused, the standard shifts to the balance of probabilities. The standard of proof is vital for safeguarding individuals from wrongful convictions and unjust treatment. It embodies the principle that it is preferable to allow a guilty person to go free than to convict an innocent one. This high standard protects the rights of the accused and ensures that judges and juries make informed, unbiased decisions.
define the presumption of innocence
The right for all accused persons to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence helps to uphold fairness as a principle of justice because it means the accused is not required to prove their innocence.
explain the presumption of innocence sample answer
The presumption of innocence is one of the most important principles in our criminal justice system and of the rule of law. It means that if a person is accused of committing a crime, they are considered innocent until proven otherwise. The presumption of innocence is an old common law right which is now protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. One way in which this is upheld is by imposing a high standard of proof and imposing the burden of proof on the prosecution, ensuring accused people do NOT have to prove they are innocent. The presumption of innocence is essential for safeguarding individuals’ rights, preventing unjust deprivation of freedom or reputation based on unproven accusations. By placing the burden of proof on the prosecution, this principle acts as a safeguard against state power and helps avoid wrongful convictions. It embodies the principle that it is more just for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be wrongfully punished.
list the rights of an accused
- right to be tried without unreasonable delay
- right to silence
- right to trial by jury
explain right to be tried without unreasonable delay
The Human Rights Charter ensures that individuals charged with a criminal offense are entitled to be tried without unreasonable delay. This right applies to everyone, regardless of past convictions or personal characteristics, and aims to have charges heard in a timely manner.
While some delays may occur, they must be reasonable based on factors like the complexity of the case. For instance, a case involving multiple crime scenes and accused individuals may justifiably require more preparation time compared to one with a single incident and numerous witnesses.
Section 21 of the Charter supports this right, stating that anyone arrested for a criminal charge has the right to a timely trial. This safeguards the basic rights to liberty and security and upholds the presumption of innocence, ensuring individuals are not held for an unreasonable length of time while awaiting trial.
The Human Rights Charter requires that an accused child, defined as anyone under 18, be brought to trial as quickly as possible. This requirement places a greater burden on the prosecution because of the significant impact a trial can have on a child’s well-being.
explain the right to silence (accused)
The “right to silence” protects an accused person from being compelled to speak or provide information in legal situations. Key protections include:
- The right to refuse to answer questions during a criminal investigation.
- The right not to give evidence at trial or to present a defense or witnesses.
Common law supports this right by establishing that:
- An accused person can remain silent without it being assumed they are guilty.
- No negative implications can be drawn from an accused introducing a defense later or answering some questions but not others.
Statutory law also reinforces this right, such as Section 89 of the Evidence Act 2008 (VIC), which states that unfavorable inferences cannot stem from a person’s silence.
Judges must instruct juries not to conclude guilt based on an accused person’s choice to remain silent or refrain from providing evidence.
Exceptions exist; for example, if police suspect someone has committed or is about to commit a crime, or may be able to assist in the investigation of an indictable offence, they may require the person to provide their name and address.
explain the right to trial by jury (accused)
A trial by jury is a legal process where a person’s peers decide the outcome of a case, specifically determining guilt in criminal cases. This right dates back to before the Magna Carta of 1215, which asserted that no free man can be imprisoned without a lawful judgment by peers. The jury system allows for community participation and ensures laws are applied according to community standards.
In Victoria, the right to a jury trial is partially protected by statute law for state indictable offenses and by the Australian Constitution for Commonwealth indictable offenses.
State Indictable Offences
The Juries Act 2000 (Vic) requires that a jury for indictable offenses be made up of 12 members, with the possibility of up to three additional jurors, due to trial length which can help avoid any disruptions such as potential illness. Jurors must decide on the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth Indictable Offences
Section 80 of the Australian Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for anyone charged with a Commonwealth indictable offense, which includes serious crimes like terrorism. This right cannot be waived by the accused. However, this right is limited as it only applies to Commonwealth offenses, as most indictable offenses fall under state jurisdiction, and the Commonwealth Parliament determines which offenses are indictable.
list the rights of the victim
-Right to give evidence using alternative arrangements
-Right to be informed about the proceedings
-Right to be informed of the likely release date of the offender
explain the right to give evidence using alternative arrangements (victim)
In some criminal cases, victims may also act as witnesses and need to provide evidence for the prosecution. The Criminal Procedure Act (2009) in Victoria includes provisions to protect certain witnesses by allowing for alternative arrangements when giving evidence.
Cases Allowing Alternative Arrangements
The court may direct these arrangements for witnesses in cases involving:
- Sexual offenses
- Family violence offenses
- Obscene or threatening language or behavior in public
- Sexual exposure in public
These arrangements can be implemented at any stage of the proceeding, including appeals.
Types of Alternative Arrangements
- Witnesses may give evidence from a location outside the courtroom using closed-circuit television, ensuring communication with the courtroom. This evidence is recorded.
- Screens can be placed to shield the witness from viewing the accused.
- Witnesses may choose a support person to be with them during their testimony, subject to court approval.
- Only approved individuals may remain in the courtroom while the witness testifies.
- Legal practitioners may not wear formal robes and may be required to remain seated while questioning witnesses.
In cases where the witness is a complainant for a sexual or family violence offense, the court must use closed-circuit television unless the prosecution requests otherwise, and the complainant chooses to testify in the courtroom with full awareness of their options.
These arrangements aim to reduce the trauma and intimidation that witnesses may face, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual offenses and family violence.
explain the right to be informed about the proceedings (victim)
The Victim’s Charter recognizes that individuals affected by crime have the right to receive important information about legal proceedings and the criminal justice system. It requires investigatory and prosecuting agencies, as well as victim services, to provide timely information on support services, compensation entitlements, and legal assistance.
Investigatory agencies must keep victims informed about the progress of investigations, unless doing so could jeopardize the case or if the victim chooses not to receive updates.
Once a prosecution starts, victims should be informed about:
- The charges against the accused
- The reasons if no charges are filed
- How to find the date, time, and location of hearings
- The outcome of the proceedings and any sentence imposed
- Details of any appeals
Victims also have the right to attend court hearings. These provisions ensure that victims can stay updated on cases that impact them and seek justice.
explain the right to be informed of the likely release date of the offender (victim)
Victims of a criminal act of violence, such as rape, sexual offenses, kidnapping, and stalking, can apply to be included in the Victims Register. Registered individuals receive important information about imprisoned offenders, including notification of their parole release at least 14 days in advance. They also have the right to know the offender’s sentence length, be informed of any prison escapes, and submit input regarding potential parole releases.
define fairness
Fairness: the principle that all people can participate in the justice system and its processes should be impartial and open. The right to a fair trial or hearing is a right protected by the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Human Rights Charter).
explain fairness sample answer
Impartial Processes
Fairness in the judicial system requires that courts and personnel remain independent and impartial. This means avoiding bias toward either party, with decisions based solely on facts and law. Apprehended bias occurs when a reasonable person might think that a judge or jury member could lack impartiality, such as in cases where a judge is friends with a witness. In such situations, the judge may need to recuse themselves. Impartiality also applies beyond the courtroom; police and court personnel should act without bias when assisting the accused.
Open Processes
Open processes are crucial for fairness in the criminal justice system. Transparency allows the public to scrutinize the actions and decisions of judicial institutions. Public hearings and accessible court judgments help ensure that justice is visible and accountable. However, there are times when courts may need to be closed to protect victims or witnesses, such as redacting the name of a child victim.
Participation
Fairness also includes ensuring participation in the justice system, particularly for the accused and victims. Key elements include:
- Right to know the case: The accused should understand the facts and evidence presented against them.
- Ability to prepare a defense: The accused must have adequate time and resources to prepare and present their case, including the right to call witnesses.
- Access to legal representation: The accused should be able to defend themselves or seek legal assistance, including eligibility for legal aid if necessary.
Additional fairness features include the right to silence and the presumption of innocence.
define equality
All people engaging with the justice system and its processes should be treated in the same way. If the same treatment creates disparity or disadvantage, adequate measures should be implemented to allow everyone to engage with the justice system without disparity or disadvantage.
explain equality sample answer
The Humans Rights Charter protects equality by stating that every person:
- is equal before the law
- is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination
- has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination
The first aspect of equality is that individuals must be treated the same, known as “formal equality.” This means everyone receives identical support regardless of personal characteristics like race, religion, gender identity, or age. Essentially, a “one size fits all” approach is applied, with the same processes for every case. For example, a person seeking advice from a community legal center (CLC) would get the same information as anyone else, regardless of their financial situation or vulnerability.
Conversely, the second element of equality recognizes that treating everyone the same can lead to disparities. This is called “substantive equality,” which acknowledges that unique circumstances may require special measures to avoid disadvantages. For instance, if an accused person does not speak English, applying only formal equality would disadvantage them, as court proceedings would proceed without an interpreter or translated information.
To address such disadvantages, measures like providing an interpreter and ensuring accessible information in the accused’s language should be implemented. While there is no exhaustive list of necessary measures, they should apply across all facets of the criminal justice system, not just during the trial.
- Interpreters: Needed for individuals who do not understand or communicate in English.
- Providing Information Differently: Information may need to be shared in an individual’s native language or communicated clearly and slowly, particularly for those from diverse backgrounds or for children.
- Changes to Court Processes: Adjustments to court settings may be required. For example, a young accused person might benefit from a less formal courtroom. Vulnerable witnesses may also need special arrangements to reduce trauma during their testimony.
- Different Oaths and Affirmations: Individuals can use various religious texts for oaths, or choose to affirm truth without referencing religion.
- Cultural Accommodations: Changes may be necessary to avoid disadvantaging people from specific cultures, such as those from First Nations who may avoid direct eye contact, which can be misinterpreted by others.
- Breaks and Adjournments: Flexibility during a trial may be needed, particularly for individuals with disabilities or for children, who may require more frequent breaks.
define access
Access: is defined by an individual’s understanding of their legal rights and ability to pursue their case. Access is the principle that all people should be able to engage with the justice system and its processes on an informed basis.
explain access sample answer
Engagement with the Justice System
To engage with the justice system, individuals need the ability to participate effectively, which includes:
- Physical Access: People must be able to access courts and legal services. This challenge is greater for those in rural areas or with disabilities.
- Technological Access: If services are offered online, individuals must have the means to navigate these platforms, which can be difficult for those lacking technological skills or access.
- Financial Access: No one should be denied a defense due to financial constraints, particularly the accused who need funds to hire legal representation.
- No Delays: Cases should be resolved promptly to ensure effective engagement with the system.
Informed Engagement
Individuals should also engage on an informed basis, meaning they need to:
- Understand their legal rights and processes.
- Have sufficient information to make informed decisions (e.g., whether to plead guilty).
Challenges exist for those who do not speak English well, First Nations peoples, children, and individuals from diverse backgrounds. Key factors to support informed engagement include:
- Education: Higher education levels often lead to better understanding of legal rights and processes.
- Information: Access to clear information about court processes is essential. This should come from courts and legal agencies and be available both online and in person.
- Legal and Support Services: Free access to legal support can enhance understanding of rights and legal procedures.
- Legal Representation: Having a lawyer significantly improves an individual’s access to justice.
While access to the justice system does not guarantee desired outcomes, it ensures individuals can engage with available processes and institutions.