Jury Service.....

[Studley 2436]

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]

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]

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:

Dan

[RufflyRustic]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[DanP]

I love it when a defendant decides to make an in person plea of not guilty (They defend themselves). Makes for a very amusing hearing usually.

Another one is when the crook asks who is charging them. Answer, the police. Yeah but who's laying the charge - the police.

Victims make complaints. It's the police who charge people where enough evidence exists to suggest that the person has a case to answer.

Dan