The Local and Supreme Courts Essay

Being State Courts, the Local and Supreme Courts’ proceedings and procedural practices are somewhat similar. The jurisdiction of the courts, the seriousness of the cases, and the overall atmosphere, however, clearly showed the contrast between the courts. The judge’s main responsibility is to give the people a chance to intervene in cases where they are being sued or have claims made against them. It is clear that a court is a professional setting where disputes can be resolved by following the correct and appropriate procedures. In this instance, a criminal court is an opulent, time-consuming setting that disregards legal procedures. This means that immediately someone is arrested, they are taken to court to have the criminal case appointed on them. Moreover, fcriminalthe court is a place where the unbiased and fair trial is heard. Therefore there are no disadvantages particularly the party involved in the disagreements (Blad & Cornwell, 2013)

The Local Court is the first tier in the State court hierarchy and is profoundly important as it is where the vast majority of cases are heard. It is concerned primarily with small civil claims and lesser offenses such as R v Murray, in which an aboriginal woman was charged with the assault of her protective mother. The little weight of the legal matters of this offense is explicitly contrasted with the importance of Glenn Lynch v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, in which Lynch sued some newspapers for defamation.

The legal matters were significantly more diverse and challenging in this case, and as the Supreme Court heard such the case. The critical issues to be decided in this hearing were whether Lynch, a licensed jockey, engaged in gambling while he was permitted and whether the newspapers defamed him by misrepresenting the facts. The adversarial influence on both the courts was evident in that the judge or magistrate was unfamiliar with the matter pre-trial and passive in the development of evidence (Roth, 2012).

There was a clear distinction between the respective courts in their manner of operation. The Supreme Court had a solemn ambiance. The judges and barristers clothed in their black robes and wigs helped to create this atmosphere, while the positioning of the judge in the highest seat of the room commanded respect. The court officials announced the entrance of the judge with three knocks and declared the case.

As a court of record, the court had a court reporter who recorded proceedings onto a computer. The interesting point was that the barristers referred to each other as ’friends’ although their mannerisms indicated they weren’t. The court door was always open, perhaps indicating that ’justice’ is open to everyone. The weight of each of the decisions of the Supreme Court was made clear when the judge made his wish to reserve his judgment instead of delivering it immediately in Linda Barrett v Linda Gaudry (Mitchele, 2012)

The first case to be presented involved a man who was being incarcerated in the Brisbane Correctional Centre. Arguing his case the inmate claimed that he was unable to work reason being that he was injured making it unable for him to work which means that he could not be able to pay for child support. The judge reviewed the past payments of child support, and it was noted that before his incarceration he only made one payment to the mother for child support. He claimed that because of the injury to his leg he was unable to go to work.

The accused failed to provide any documentation that would prove he was unable to work. For reasons unknown all his payments stopped, the judge also found the inmate to be in contempt of court for failing to obey the court. The judge finally found him to be irresponsible and gave him a sentence of ninety days in jail, in addition, he was to pay $1000 (Baykithc, 2010). During my observations, I was formally dressed to the extent that I did not really blend in with everyone that was in the proceedings. The lawyers would come and go as they wanted without any deference or respect for the proceedings that were in session.

In contrast, the hearings in the Local Court were quick, and judgments were made immediately. Sometimes the accused even chose to be unrepresented, such as in R v Richard Dummit, where Dummit pleaded guilty to a charge of domestic assault and was given a good behavior bond. The magistrates and solicitors did not wear wigs nor did they necessarily wear black robes, often preferring a suit. The court had many small courtrooms and was bustling with people ranging from the accused to witnesses, law students, solicitors, and policemen. The presence of the police was perhaps to signify the authority and sense of justice of the court. They also had a more practical role as was seen in R v Mr. Raymond Anjoul, where a constable was called as a witness (Batrice, 20). The judgments of the Local Court were also quite lenient, as in R v Murray, Deborah, where the accused was let off with a two-year good behavior bond after taking into consideration her role as a mother and her promise to get anger management counseling.

The second hearing that I attended was the Session Court which its physical appearance of the court was similar to other jurisdictions. When I first entered the courtroom, I found it to be somewhat small and not as big as I expected. The judge usually sits at the center and in the presence of everyone while the interpreter sits in front of the judge with the Bar Table placed directly in front of them. The witness box is on the right-hand side of the Bar Table. A police officer usually stands at the left side of the defendant to provide security for the defendant as well as those present in the court. There is usually a divider that acts as a block that divides where the public sits and those that are being accused. The primary role of the interpreter is to ensure that the witness gets to read the oath before testifying in the case.

The Local Court has a monetary jurisdictional limit of $10,000 under the small claims division and $60,000 under the general claims division (Popart, 2010). This financial limit means that the court will hear relatively minor cases as a lower tier court of the State Court hierarchy. Through legislation, it has also been prescribed some criminal jurisdiction of summary matters such as AVO applications. R v Murray Deborah thus fell under the authority of the Local Court. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is of general administration in that it is ’unlimited,’ as stated by the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

Reflection

The legal process in the supreme courts appeared to be more formal than those that were in civil courts. In the Victorian court system, there was less jury that involved in the outcome. Personally, I believe that the involvement of juries in trials is a pure democracy and the public will feel more confident. The courts as I have seen them in action are capable of efficiently hearing cases and achieving the best results. One thing I noted is that the trial proceedings were quite simple to understand and possible to attribute. But through theobservations, I found myself filled with many mixed emotions on what I had witnessed. It also influences the thoughts in regards to how legal systems operate on continuous basis domestic violence acts. Many of thoseare accused of crimes become disappointed and angry because of the verdict of the court and maybe if it’s a jury. I can confidently say that because of my observations and how I was shown the different courtrooms, I can now pick out the differences between the various court jurisdictions that we have. I have gained a lot of knowledge about our court system and most of all I have gained confidence in the court system and its ability to protectors.

Conclusion

Both the Local Court and the Supreme Court play essential roles in the different tiers of the State Court hierarchy. Regarding their jurisdiction, ambiance, and proceedings, there were some differences, but it was these differences which allowed the law to function smoothly in the respective courts.

References

Baykitch, A. (2013). Arbitration Law of Australia: Practice and Procedure. Juris Publishing, Inc.

David J. Cornwell, J. B. (2013). Civilising Criminal Justice: An International Restorative Agenda for Penal Reform. Waterside Press.

Mitchell, S. (2012). Victorian Britain (Routledge Revivals): An Encyclopedia. Routledge.

Popat, P. (2014). International Product Law Manual. International Product Law Manual.

Roth, M. P. (2010). Crime and Punishment: A History of the Criminal Justice System. Cengage Learning.