Jury Service..... [Archive]

RufflyRustic

9th March 2006, 07:11 PM

Clinton, I love your sense of humour :D thanks - I needed that.

Outback - hic!!! Here's to us all http://www.ubeaut.biz/beersmiley.gif http://www.ubeaut.biz/dizzy.gif http://www.ubeaut.biz/zonked.gif hopefully I won't http://www.ubeaut.biz/throwup.gif

Termite - too true :rolleyes:

Got empanelled Tuesday, first day yesterday, only needed one stiff drink. Today was second day, needed very stiff drinks. Tomorrow we retire, may or may not be back on tomorrow night Must remember to pack vodka into bag just in case....... (crap will there by any left for tomorrow?????:eek: ) hey, when'd my sense of humour come back??? must be time for the second drink.

Cheers before I can't type anymore
RR

craigb

9th March 2006, 07:43 PM

I was called for dury duty last year.

Sat around in a big room with a lot of fellow citizens. Went to a court, wasn't empanelled (hell I wasn't even called) went back down to the big room for a couple of hours then they said :
"We don't need you today. You can go home. Oh and btw you've got more chance of winning the lottery than being called again in the next 12 months"

Well I was all ready to do my civic duty but I was very glad I didn't have to.

Sounds like you got stuck with a bad one Wendy. Very sorry to hear it. :(

Craig

Groggy

9th March 2006, 08:14 PM

Heya Wendy, do the best you can, be objective, then walk away.

Don't take it home with you, if you give it the best shot you can then that's all we ask of our jurors - no one is trained for the job.

Have a V&O for me too - happy headaches!

Groggy

DanP

9th March 2006, 08:40 PM

Just so you know...

I NEVER have to do jury duty. :D :p :D :p

Dan

PS. Just remember, they're all GUILTY.

Zed

9th March 2006, 08:43 PM

i did jury duty, sent the bastard to the big house for 5 yrs (only) that'll teach him to knife people... hopefully he'll have the favour returned by another outstanding citizen.

be happy - you get to see the system work!

Ashore

9th March 2006, 08:53 PM

Too late for my advice but my two rules ,don't get elected foreman/person as they have to sit in the front row and always sit in the back row cause you can lean your head back against the wall and be a bit more comfortable. :cool:

Otherwise follow Groggy's advice and leave it there when you finish

Rgds

Ianab

9th March 2006, 09:23 PM

I've had to show up for jury duty a couple of times, but I've found wearing black jeans and a Metallica T-shirt has allways got me excused :rolleyes:

So much for a jury of your peers...

Clinton1

9th March 2006, 09:27 PM

just so long as its a jury of the right sort of peers, old chap!

RufflyRustic

9th March 2006, 09:30 PM

geez, what have I done!!!:eek:

Yep, I'm the foreman.
Haven't moved to the front, yet. chairs are bolted to the floor so can't lean head back:rolleyes:

Can't leave it there, no chance to debrief, I think this is what is the hardest i.e. can't talk it over and the others are in the same boat as me. I ........... and can't say any more, so there we go again.

The two stiff drinks haven't touched the sides. normally I'd be legless by now but feel like I could operate a power tool quite well at present (not that I would). must be due for another drink.:rolleyes:

cheers - literally
Wendy

Driver

9th March 2006, 09:37 PM

Wendy

Jury service is tough stuff if you get the bad cases. It's been a long time since I was called to do my bit. It gave me an insight into the kind of ugliness that DanP and his mates have to deal with all the time.

Tough it out. Do your citizen's duty and then try and forget about it. Don't take it home.

If it helps, I can tell you that you will slowly come to think about it far less frequently than you might right now imagine. You don't forget it. Not, that is, if you are at all intelligent and have a conscience - and I'm sure you qualify on both counts.

If it isn't obvious from the above, I sympathise. Keep your chin up!

All the best

Col

Oh - and another thing: thank your lucky stars that you're in the jury box - not the dock!

Bodgy

9th March 2006, 09:44 PM

Duty, Ruffy, duty.

Just don't take it home with you. Be honest, do your best. It's part of the fabric of our society, without which we could be like Iran or some other unspeakable szithole.

Be strong.

craigb

9th March 2006, 09:45 PM

must be due for another drink.:rolleyes:

Nah, you'd only feel even worse in the jury tomorrow.

Hang in there girl, you are doing a good thing.

boban

9th March 2006, 09:53 PM

"I dont think I can be objective your Honour". Best excuse and works every time.

But I think its absolutely necessary that we (but not me or Dan) respect the system we have. It can be a pain and lengthy but well worth it.

AlexS

9th March 2006, 10:00 PM

Sympathy Ruffly. Was on one for 5 weeks a few years ago. Even though, by the end of the trial, we had all reached the same decision, we went over it in detail to be sure as we could be that we had it right. I still think about it occasionally, but I don't lose sleep because I know that we did the best we could. Take others' advice, do the best you can and leave it behind when the trial's over.

Clinton1

9th March 2006, 10:39 PM

The missus was an interpreter for a pretty unspeakable case once... if the case you are in is ugly then yep, it'll stay with you, but it will fade.

Not 100% nice I know, but I guess thats the price we pay for taking responsibility for our society.
Bit like a scary rollercoaster when you are a kid, you can't get off the ride, but once you are back to normal life then the ugliness becomes more and more remote.

Life's a trip, hey.... who needs drugs?

Pat

9th March 2006, 10:49 PM

Afte 10 beer at the risso', Wendy behave and do your best.
We will still be here for you!:)

Ps a few of my mates are in DanP's profession . . . makesa for interesting berry sessions!:)

Iain

10th March 2006, 08:19 AM

Like DanP I do not qualify for jury duty, but having spent some 70% of my public service life in court I think I have done my bit, generally in the form of expert advice for the prosecution.
There are still some heavy ones that wake me up with a jolt at night, usually involving children.

Wood Borer

10th March 2006, 08:41 AM

I take my hat off to DanP and Iain who have spent so much time in those sterile and slow moving places.

I have been in court on four occasions for speeding - Magistrates Court, witness to hit run - Magistrates Court, jury - County Court and chararacter witness - County Court.

Jury duty was the most boring but then I felt a little bit more in control of my destiny rather than trying to act and speak in the best way to reduce a penalty or gaol term to someone who sees people greasing up to them each and every day.

Results $200 and three days suspension of licence:o , hit run driver found guilty:p , gaoled the accused:p , and the accused fraudster got a suspended sentence (pity because he was murdered shortly after:( ).

Simomatra

10th March 2006, 10:20 AM

My sympathy Wendy

When I lived further out west than you I also got caught for the foremans job

We did the right thing and convicted the person for murder but basically they ended up witha slapped wristhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon8.gif

A total waste of a weeks jury service and loss of normal work

Stay in there

Cheers Sam

DanP

10th March 2006, 11:01 AM

Can you all stop talking about me... I'm getting a complex. :eek:

Dan

DanP

10th March 2006, 11:32 AM

Thanks for the reddie Shedhand. If you couldn't figure out I was joking when I said they're all guilty, then you obviously have no sense of humour. :mad:

Dan

echnidna

10th March 2006, 12:20 PM

Thanks for the reddie Shedhand. If you couldn't figure out I was joking when I said they're all guilty, then you obviously have no sense of humour. :mad:

Dan

Dan, it must be great to have a job where the customers always wrong:D

Termite

10th March 2006, 12:24 PM

Thanks for the reddie Shedhand. If you couldn't figure out I was joking when I said they're all guilty, then you obviously have no sense of humour. :mad:

Dan
Antidote has been sent.;)

DanP

10th March 2006, 12:49 PM

Dan, it must be great to have a job where the customers always wrong:D

I don't call the crooks customers. The customers are the victims.

I was going ot make comment on how we get crooks to court (not - "in the van") but I'll leave it till RR is no longer empannelled. I wouldn't want to taint her judgement :rolleyes:

Dan

RufflyRustic

10th March 2006, 08:07 PM

You know, the jury service thing wouldn't have been so bad by itself, but considering everything else extraordinary that I've had to deal with over the last 6 months both workwise and personally, I think I'm surviving fairly well, but I think it's fair to say sorry, enough, stop the world I want to get off for a while :o

Thanks Dan:) - perfect timing by the way, we deliberated for 6 hours and now that it's been on the local 6pm news, we had to consider 6 charges, the worst being attempted murder - not guilty.

Intense, Very intense and stressful, my head is still thumping.

Sorry Pat - I didn't behave and am not going to behave tonight either ;) (I think I have just enough V&O left)

Dan - I got the joke you made in your first post:) - funny how HWMNBO had made exactly the same joke not an hour before. After this one instance, it's enough to show me that it's very fair that police are not called to be on juries.

The bad news - I still have to go back next week to be empanelled for antoher jury. Juror support counselling is looking good.

The good news - this case is over.

Guys - thanks for the support and the stories. It all helps.

Wendy

doug the slug

10th March 2006, 10:47 PM

Well Done Wendy,

At times it doesnt seem fair to the ones it happens to that they have to make the hard calls on behalf of the rest of our society. but if any of usa ever find ourselves on the other side of the fence either rightly or wrongly, its good to know that people like you (and your fellow forumites who have gone through the same experience) take their responsibilities seriously. (not to mention danp ands boban and other people who have an involement in the legal process)

Its a complicated process and i dont envy any one of you in this process but its a dirty thankless job that someone has to do, and you dont even get a greenie for ithttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/images/icons/icon10.gif, in real life that is, in here i might pass a couple round to ease teh pain

ptc

11th March 2006, 10:26 AM

Wendy.
Start thinking about your next project.
May be a B/S box ?

RufflyRustic

11th March 2006, 11:26 AM

Geez PTC

that's a bit eery

My girlfriend was thinking about me this morning and I then rang her. Then I was thinking about making b.s.b in the shape of a heart for her and then I read that you were posting this at the same time ... :eek: :)

Am still very shaky, but it's nearly sawdust time, that will help a lot.

Dan, I'm very interested in hearing how you get them to court, but not just yet.

Thanks
Wendy

DanP

11th March 2006, 08:09 PM

In the van. :D

Dan

ozwinner

11th March 2006, 08:16 PM

Dan uses the yellow pages.

Al :p

Toggy

11th March 2006, 09:50 PM

DanP & Iain,

don't be too sure about the callup business. I retired somewhere around 93/4 and the twits have regularly tried to call me up. I think that they may have changed the rules so that you can be called up after leaving the services for 10 years. I also used to be outside the distance; but they have also widened the dragnet.

Shedhand, maybe you should check out just how hard it is to present a guilty person for trial; let alone an innocent person. One minor point of evidence missing and no trial. You would maybe like to really find out the truth about a crime then spend some time at the trial listening to the defen.... or is that the amateur and professional story tellers. I will leave it there so I don't get into trouble.

There are a couple of old sayings.... Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and.. Pentridge is full of innocent people; you just ask them and they will tell you they are innocent.

Gee it's nice to get a new puter that works.

Toggy

Iain

12th March 2006, 07:19 AM

Pentridge is full of innocent people
It is now, very trendy too I believe:p

Sturdee

12th March 2006, 02:15 PM

DanP & Iain,

don't be too sure about the callup business. I retired somewhere around 93/4 and the twits have regularly tried to call me up. I think that they may have changed the rules so that you can be called up after leaving the services for 10 years. I also used to be outside the distance; but they have also widened the dragnet.

Toggy

Toggy ,

The current rules, as per my last jury call up papers, says that you are ineligible to serve as a juror if you are or, in the last ten years, have been a member of the police force, etc, etc.

Hence every one in previously exempted employment, once they have been retired for 10 years, are eligible for call up. But no doubt you would be challenged because of your previous occupation.

Peter.

DanP

12th March 2006, 03:19 PM

Shedhand, maybe you should check out just how hard it is to present a guilty person for trial; let alone an innocent person. One minor point of evidence missing and no trial.

This is where I was going, however, I'll elaborate further.

1. Copper catches crook. Whether that is from his own observation or from eyewitness accounts.

2. Copper processes crook. This is the interview and if there is enough evidence, charge and bail. Or if there is the slightest doubt, the crook has offered a legal defence, alibi etc. then you release them pending a summons.

3. Do the brief. This includes statements from all relevant witnesses, including some that are not so relevant. Usually ends up being equivalent to the size of war and peace, even for minor matters.

4. Submit the brief to a sub officer for checking and authorisation. The sub officer checks the brief for evidence and that there is sufficient proof to prove the charge in court. Keeping in mind that if the matter goes to court with insufficient evidence, the informant may have costs awarded against the department and sometimes, himself. Therefore, even those who have plenty of evidence sometimes don't get authorised.

5. If the sgt thinks there is more to do, he sends the brief back and you have to do some more work. Then it is re-submitted and checked again. The brief can sometimes come back to the member two or three times in complicated matters.

6. Once the brief is authorised, in the case of a bail brief, it gets sent to the prosecutors. In the case of a summons matter, back to the informant to issue process. The informant chooses a court date, gets the summons signed by a court registrar, then has to serve the papers on the crook.

The point is, there is a rigorous checking process and at my level, there is no brief that gets past the sgt where there is not AMPLE evidence to prove the matter. Therefore, even though it was said tongue in cheek, it is true, they are all guilty.

This however may not be the case at the crime squads. They seem to operate more on the basis of the likelihood of a conviction. If it is likely, they will proceed to court. The difference being that they deal with a whole different level of crime and it sometimes is not in the interest of the community for the police to make the decision whether the crook goes to court or not. That's what the jury is for. (enter RR)

I hope that this gives the doubters some idea of what happens in getting a crook to court. No one gets to court where there is doubt.

Dan

AlexS

12th March 2006, 06:34 PM

Sat on a jury once trying a bloke who had knocked off a car and robbed a building society. After hearing the police officers give evidence we had no doubt he was guilty, but the prosecuting lawyer overdid it with other witnesses and by the time he'd finished we were almost convinced he was innocent (or at least, not satisfied he was guilty). Then the accused's lawyer did such a botch of a job we were convinced again that he was guilty. At the death knock, he pleaded guilty and saved us the trouble.

At least I know two lawyers I'll avoid if ever I run foul of the law.

RufflyRustic

12th March 2006, 07:50 PM

Dan, thank you for this, from the bottom of my heart.

RR

Wood Butcher

12th March 2006, 08:03 PM

Thanks Dan, That was a real eye-opener into what really happens. I never realised how much work goes into all that.

Iain

12th March 2006, 08:24 PM

And expert evidence is just as good, I provided a report to the court/prosecution, get called in, sworn in, outline my qualifications (which by now should be on record) and allowed to leave after this is accepted, process can take days before they get to you but you still have to be present awaiting your ten seconds of glory in the box.

boban

13th March 2006, 05:00 PM

boban

13th March 2006, 05:23 PM

This is where I was going, however, I'll elaborate further.

1. Copper catches crook. Whether that is from his own observation or from eyewitness accounts.

4. Keeping in mind that if the matter goes to court with insufficient evidence, the informant may have costs awarded against the department and sometimes, himself. Therefore, even those who have plenty of evidence sometimes don't get authorised.

The point is, there is a rigorous checking process and at my level, there is no brief that gets past the sgt where there is not AMPLE evidence to prove the matter. Therefore, even though it was said tongue in cheek, it is true, they are all guilty.

I hope that this gives the doubters some idea of what happens in getting a crook to court. No one gets to court where there is doubt.

Dan
This of course is from the point of view of the police.

1. How many witnesses, including police, dont tell the truth.

4. In NSW, orders for costs being awarded to criminal defendants are rare to say the least.

AMPLE evidence, that is until it is tested in cross examination.

That no one gets to court where there is a doubt is a brave statement given that people are regularly acquitted because of reasonable doubts.

Dan I reckon that the proportion of guilty defendants/accused persons is more like 90%. Most of them plead guilty.

DanP

13th March 2006, 06:32 PM

This of course is from the point of view of the police.

1. How many witnesses, including police, dont tell the truth.

Yeah, I regularly pick up some innocent off the streets and charge them just for the fun of it.

4. In NSW, orders for costs being awarded to criminal defendants are rare to say the least.

Precisely what I was saying. Most matters that costs may end up being awarded don't get to court. Remember that you only act for those who are going to court.

AMPLE evidence, that is until it is tested in cross examination.

That is, until thrown out on some bullshyte technicality.

That no one gets to court where there is a doubt is a brave statement given that people are regularly acquitted because of reasonable doubts.

That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't ample evidence. It just means that the defence have done their job and introduced enough confusion to put the matter in doubt.

Dan I reckon that the proportion of guilty defendants/accused persons is more like 90%. Most of them plead guilty.

As I said, in the higher courts they are more likely to give a matter a run because of media and community pressure to do so.

Dan

RufflyRustic

13th March 2006, 07:13 PM

Went to court this morning, they weren't there - had already been and gone - whew! Got an excusal for the rest of the 2 weeks - Whew! Talked with a psychologist today, will follow up next week. Had a chance to catch up with some of the other jurors and am now feeling much better, i.e. a survivor not a victim.

Life will go on and I will be ok, eventually, sooner than later thanks to having talked with a professional and qualified counsellor/psych.

Thank you all for your support, greenies, stories, information and debates.

Oh, by the way, the vodka bottle is empty now :)

Cheers (hic)
Wendy
______________________________________
Strong people know when to get help. It's not a sign of wimpiness or weakness, but, I believe, IMHOP, one of strength. I have openly acknowledged that I needed help in hopes that others will obtain help if they ever need it.

boban

13th March 2006, 09:26 PM

Yeah, I regularly pick up some innocent off the streets and charge them just for the fun of it.

Its not personal Dan. No doubt you've had complainants who have alterior motives.

Precisely what I was saying. Most matters that costs may end up being awarded don't get to court. Remember that you only act for those who are going to court.

My point is that it would have to be a very very crappy case to have costs awarded.

That is, until thrown out on some bullshyte technicality.

I dont quite think that the Evidence Act is such a technicality. There are good reasons for each section being enacted and generally stem from prior mistakes where innocent people have been convicted.

That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't ample evidence. It just means that the defence have done their job and introduced enough confusion to put the matter in doubt.

Juries aren't that stupid in my experience.

As I said, in the higher courts they are more likely to give a matter a run because of media and community pressure to do so.
Dan

That said, the tongue in cheek comment about them all being guilty cant be right then can it.:D

Dan I dont envy you and I certainly understand the frustrations you may feel. You remember how we first crossed paths.

We work on opposite sides of the fence, that is when I do the occasional criminal trial, and I am just airing the view from the other side.

Toggy

13th March 2006, 09:48 PM

DanP,

Gee, I thought there would be enough crooks up there to keep you busy without picking on the decent people.:D :D

You forgot to mention all the evidence that is with-held from the jury because of sleight of tongue from the liwyers; and the old "the jury don't need to hear those things, it might upset them" from the bench.

The poor old jury are treated like the proverbial mushrooms. They are only allowed to hear what those running the show want them to hear.

There is an old saying "Justice must be SEEN to be done." No mention of it having to be done. Just a lot of pomp & preening & strutting about by some overpaid egotists who think nothing of ruining the lives of decent people just to feather their own nest.

No wonder the general community have little or no faith in our legal system. And this hasn't touched on the victims being further victimised by the system as well as ridiculously lenient sentencing.

Over to you Danno.

I think I will now take my medication.
K.

boban

13th March 2006, 10:09 PM

You forgot to mention all the evidence that is with-held from the jury because of sleight of tongue from the liwyers; and the old "the jury don't need to hear those things, it might upset them" from the bench.

The poor old jury are treated like the proverbial mushrooms. They are only allowed to hear what those running the show want them to hear.

There is an old saying "Justice must be SEEN to be done." No mention of it having to be done. Just a lot of pomp & preening & strutting about by some overpaid egotists who think nothing of ruining the lives of decent people just to feather their own nest.

The old saying is that "not only must justice be done, but must also be seen to be done". That is why the jury doesnt hear about the time the defendant was 19 and involved in a pub brawl when his wife accuses him of rape. Its just not relevant to the matter at hand. There is nothing mysterious or secretive about what is going on in court.

Nothing like a bit of lawyer bashing is there. Good therapy I say.

I still dont understand why they are paid more than your average process worker. Time for me to go and preen my ego.......

Toggy

13th March 2006, 10:52 PM

Boban,

Not anti lawyer; there are some who over the years I have classed as friends. Not "close" friends because of different career paths. These people were above reproach and I very highly respected their honesty and their dedication to their clients. I in turn was always totally honest in my dealings with them.

There are a few police who I have come in contact with on different occassions who I have mistrusted extremely; but luckily over the years they have been dealt with by the judicial system, and quite rightly so. They may (or may not) have been dealt with more severely than a run of the mill criminal; but they deserved it. They gave their word to uphold the law; not break it.

If you or anyone else were in a mind to prove to me (no balance of probabilities here) of their honesty & high morals they too would gain my respect. Funnily enough I was once publicly taken to task by one of your compatriots for having too high a morals. I never thought such a thing was possible.

boban

13th March 2006, 11:15 PM

Good and bad in every profession. No reasonable doubt there.

Its good to question our systems of justice and their participants. I dont try to offend anyone here intentionally and I think, for most others on this forum, the same applies.

As long as Im not attacked personally, I take no offence to any comments which for the most part are generalisations and misconceptions about my profession. Most of it I find amusing.

I guess this is just one of those topics that I feel I can contribute to, albeit tainted with my own personal bias.

Dan_574

14th March 2006, 10:53 AM

boban you know that most of your clients are guilty like dan said they dont get to court unless they are, the evidence act doesnt come into it at court everyone knows that magistrates are a law unto them selves and they can do what they like without any serious reprucussions. Ive seen alot of cases where costs were awarded and no they werent crappy cases. The system is set up for the police to fail and every opportunity for the poor defendant, in fairness to the defendant, how many times have I heard that. I too have met some great solicitors but the dribble that comes out of there mouth about their poor client is sickening, too many of these innocent people should stand up and take account for there actions.
solidarity reg(sorry dan)

Iain

14th March 2006, 11:00 AM

I had a conversation with a duty solicitor (legal aid) one lunchtime in Melb Magistrates Court and he was telling me the most difficult aspect of his job was to put forward a glowing appraisal of his newfound client that is as original as the one he did 20 minutes earlier, and knowing that in another 20 minutes he will have to do another one.
That would have to be a challenge.
Is there a little book of repertoire that is used?;)

echnidna

14th March 2006, 11:26 AM

The lawyers and the cops will always be adversaries.

But thats not the problem.

When the bums are convicted and go off to jail they usually get out before they have served the full time bequeathed to them.

Dan_574

14th March 2006, 11:28 AM

yeah there is, my client has had a troubled past and he's been a good boy for the last 15 minutes, he has a wife and kids and he's trying to get back on track, because most magistrates are now from a defence background its accepted, as can be seen in the media about lax sentencing.

RufflyRustic

14th March 2006, 07:12 PM

Wood Butcher

14th March 2006, 07:33 PM

Now to close it and leave it.......

Probably the wisest words that could be said!

doug the slug

14th March 2006, 09:17 PM

Now to close it and leave it.......

Exactly, its not your fault he did what he did, in fact, its his fault you had to go through this. You took your responsibility seriously, to your credit, but its over for you now. rest assured that if someone else was sitting in your seat the outcome would still have been the same. he will probably do about 2 years of his 8 year sentence, the victims will still be suffering when he is released. just make sure you arent!!!!!

Daddles

14th March 2006, 09:34 PM

He got 8 years jail, 10 years probation or was that a good behaviour bond, or was the 10 years how long he had to stay away from the man, girlfriend and her children for.

Now to close it and leave it.......

W

At least you got to find out what happened to him. I did three cases and NOT ONCE did we find out what the sentence was.

Jurours - treated like #### and irrelevant to the 'real' game.

Richard

Sturdee

14th March 2006, 10:18 PM

At least you got to find out what happened to him. I did three cases and NOT ONCE did we find out what the sentence was.

Jurors - treated like #### and irrelevant to the 'real' game.

Richard

In the case I sat on we were given a special phone number and the ref. no to ring to find out the sentence given.

Whilst I didn't like being on a jury I found that we were very well treated by the court staff and Judge and we were made to feel a very real and important part of the process. In my case I must agree with Danp and his comments about the accused being guilty.

The case came to the County Court after a Coroners hearing and a Committal hearing. The evidence was overwelming, not only the photographic evidence taken at the scene of the accident, the expert evidence, our own inspection of the site and the taped record of interview where the accusaed admitted guilt. Yet the accused pleaded not guilty, making us sit through 6 days of hearing evidence.

The only sad thing is that we couldn't set the lenght of sentence as I feel the Judge was too lenient.

Wendy, now that it is over forget about it, no good dwelling on it anymore.

Peter.

Studley 2436

14th March 2006, 11:42 PM

I popped in late on this one.

Wendy you can feel proud that you did everything that could be expected of you to perfection. Others played their part and in that you had no control. You should only feel pride about this that you did what was asked of you.

Something I can't help feeling about the justice system is that those accused get legal aid and a proper lawyer representing them. The victim doesn't get anyone to argue for them. There is a prosecuting officer, who is frequently a policeman without a tertiary degree and his/her job isn't to argue for the victim, it is to argue for the law and see that charges are brought against the accused.

It should be no surprise then that the system lets down victims of crime.

Possibly the most serious issue with the courts is that judges have no real world experience. They know law and arguements and consider offence to the law as the most greivious thing. This is why they can toss things out on technicalities.

Boban I am sure you have heard the law is an ass. *G* Two cases spring to mind. One is the Ausmac case where an individual tried to sue the big banks for a couple of billion. The case spent 18 months in court before being tossed out on a technicality that the individual could not pay NAB their costs if he lost. This was before the court had even heard what the complaint was. The bank did the usual bank thing of just running the case so long that the other side ran out of money. 18 months and they could not even hear what the complaint was one side against the other.

The other one which would be a scream if it wasn't real is that a driver in WA was accused for driving over a man who was sleeping in the middle of the road wrapped in a black blanket whilst his drunk friend was wandering around on the side of the road. The High Court decided that the driver was 30% responsible. Obviously never driven a car! I know in that situation out bush on a dark road I'd be watching the drunk and to avoid the sleeping man would be very unlikely. The High Court in it's wisdom found against the driver after the various lower courts had all found for the the driver. What makes me wonder is how did the sleeping man manage to get it before the high court?

Anyway enough bleating.

Studley

boban

15th March 2006, 09:45 AM

No system is perfect and the cases you hear about are certainly in the minority. The system works on a daily basis with thousands of cases being dealt with. You hear nothing of those cases.

Yes there are ones that go pear shaped but for the most part we have a very good system of law. It is expensive, but that is not unique to this country.

As to the cases you mention, it is difficult to comment on cases where you only have snippets of information. The reasoning process is usually revealed in the judgments that most people, especially shock jocks dont want to read.

To get to the High Court, you usually need a unique matter of law to be determined or a constitutional argument. Thereafter all the courts down below must follow the principles of the decision determined by the High Court.

As to your comments about Judges, they come in all flavours.

DanP

15th March 2006, 09:59 AM

As to your comments about Judges, they come in all flavours.

Agree fully Boban, but poo flavour seems to be a bit more prevalent these days.:eek: :D

Dan

RufflyRustic

15th March 2006, 10:36 AM

Thanks all for the support.

A day of sawdust, sanding and shellac has been very soothing. Another one is due, if only the weather would agree:rolleyes:

A couple of points coming from yesterday's posts. I needed to hear the sentence to get that additional piece of closure.

I don't think the Crown Prosecutor was a learned policeman in this instance.

I've never been able to make a general comment and have it apply 100% to everything, everyone and every situation. There are always exceptions and qualifications needed, to be fair.

If it was one of mine as the accused, I'd want the jurors to do what I did. What goes around can come around, but hopefully not in this particular instance.

W
___
is the sun shining yet?:)

Iain

15th March 2006, 10:58 AM

All flavours, mate of mine years ago got done for speeding on Nepean Hwy, mid week at 3.ooam, in court and some meathead on before him got a good behaviour bond for robbery, he got a $300 fine, he was reallllllllllly peed off, that was a weeks pay back then.

Studley 2436

15th March 2006, 12:20 PM

The reasoning process is usually revealed in the judgments that most people, especially shock jocks dont want to read.

I suppose Boban my main grief with the law is that it should make sense to normal people. Housewifes and Tradesmen because by and large they are the ones under it's rule. You are right about shock jocks who just like it all cut and dried black and white when of course the world never is. The man who ran over the sleeping man case was criticised in the editorial of the Australian. That's where I got that from. The Ausmac case was running for some time and was reported in the business pages. So it is my own shock that they didn't even get to say what their case was. It was legal tactics and trickery on the part of the bank so that the case was never heard. They were paying a lot of very expensive lawyers who must have decided that was the best way to do things. Mind you Michael West said right at the beginning that was what was going to happen because they do it every time.

The trouble with the law is that it is reservered for the very rich or the very poor. The rest of us miss out on it pretty much.

Studley

Clinton1

15th March 2006, 12:45 PM

I'm a bit confused about the comment that the victim doesn't have anyone argueing for them.

Doesn't the victim press charges, then the prosecution introducing the evidence is in fact arguing the victim's case?
The evidence is presented by both sides I guess, and then the defence and prosecuting officials try to poo on the other sides evidence.

Or does the original comment come from a "victim's rights", "victim impact" or ownership pespective?

RufflyRustic

15th March 2006, 08:15 PM

The case last week was a criminal one, which means the police brought the charges against the accused, not the victims. The Crown Prosecutor presented evidence to try to show the accused did it. The Defence let the accused be his own witness - isn't this very unusual?. The Defence did what he is supposed to i.e. introduce doubt.

Is it a civil case when the victim decides to press charges?

W

boban

15th March 2006, 09:07 PM

A civil case is where two parties (either individuals or companies) commence proceedings that have nothing to do with the criminal law. The most common examples are breaches of contract (sale agreements, leases, service agreements) and tortious liability (trespass, negligence, damage to property).

99% of Criminal cases involve the police/DPP who usually charge the defendants/accused person and run the hearing/trial. A private individual can commence criminal proceedings but its not the most intelligent thing to do.

If a victim decides to sue, it is usually a civil case where the victim is seeking damages for any injury they suffered as a result of the criminal or negligence act of another.