Introduction
Courts are the designated avenues for judicial processes. In the event of a conflict of any manner, the parties to the conflict usually attempt to resolve their differences through several possible mechanisms including mediation, arbitration, and plea-bargaining. However, when all these fail to see to the implementation of justice, the courts are the final resort. One can turn to any of the various types of available courts depending on the nature and significance of the dispute.
Among these courts are children courts, industrial courts, environmental courts, district and local courts. Each has its specific jurisdiction, which simply refers to the scope of issues, or particular subject that it deals with. This paper provides a comprehensive report on the local courts of Downing Center, Sydney. It expounds on the court proceedings, the adjudication process, the role of various significant parties in a case, the significance of legal representation, and the effect of all the above on behaviorism.
Main body
These particular courts are designed in a Victorian fashion. The building is spacious and it has a very narrow and spiral staircase leading to the upper floors. There is a large security area at the entrance where everybody who is getting into the building is frisked including the lawyers, judges, and the sheriffs. The lawyers and the judges are elegant and command respect. The police and other officers from the Sherriff’s department are also conspicuous because of their uniforms.
In the courtroom, everybody stands and bows when the judge enters and when he leaves. The bailiff, who also orders the court on how to behave, announces him. Once inside the courtroom, he sits at the bench facing the rest of the court. the defense lawyers sit in the left side of the court, close to the dock, while the prosecution sits on the right side of the bar table. The offender takes his or her place in the dock and case he or she cannot communicate in English, an interpreter sits with them to translate the proceedings. It is interesting to note here that in such a case, the practitioners in the case should notify the registry on their need for an interpreter at least fourteen days before the hearings to allow them time to allocate an interpreter on the Dee day.
The Interpreting and Translating Center, which is a branch of Multicultural SA, provides the interpreters and sets out strict conditions or situations where one has their approval to use the interpreter’s services. These stipulations do not include lawyers taking instruction from their clients or communicating with other third parties. For these purposes, a lawyer has to hire an independent interpreter (Stapleton 2003, 28). The atmosphere in the court is tense and intimidating. Lawyers use a lot of indecipherable legal jargon and they cross-examine witnesses from the opposing side extensively. The jury seems to be from all lifestyles and occupations, and they give the defendant a chance for peer adjudication. There are stringent rules of evidence that if breached, it is possible to dismiss the entire case due to inadmissibility of evidence.
Consequently, in the criminal process, all parties responsible for handling evidence are very careful to meet the minimum threshold requirements of sufficient / admissible evidence. Another interesting issue is on sentencing. The judge has discretionary powers on sentencing, which is to mean that he or she is not bound to give a particular type or amount of sentence per case. The extent of punishment accorded depends on the type and extent of the offence committed. If a defendant is guilty on several counts, a judge is within his rights giving him a concurrent sentence for all counts charged. This means that if for instance for the first count, he has a sentence of ten years and on the second count, the sentence is five years, the defendant will only serve a total of five years.
This paper examines two cases that the local courts of Sydney adjudicated. The first is the case of the Crown v Baroudi presided over by Judge Garling on 29 August 2011 at 10.00 am. Mr. Baroudi, a 43-year-old family man (with five children) was charged with “gaining property under false witness.” This simply means that he had in his possession property that was not legally his. In his defence, Mr. Baroudi argued through his counsel that at first he had been under the impression that he was working as an informant for the police, and that he believed he was helping them make a bust. He was supposed to provide ‘the police’ with the dates, times and locations of the operation.
The value of the first goods was 1 million dollars per container and he received a handsome pay for this. However, after transacting for the second time, he had started to receive threatening texts and calls from the people he had made the first transaction with, which is when he realized that he was dealing with ‘dirty cops’. At this point, he began to fear for his life and that of his family and so continued to transact with them while bidding his time for the right moment to blow the whistle. However, the law caught up with him on during the second transaction and the police arrested him. During the plea bargain, he promised to reveal the identity of his ‘associates’ in exchange for the mitigation of his sentence. Judge Garling found the defendant guilty of the charges brought against him. He had been a participant in the crime and although the trial was not about the police, the judge found them to be guilty of collaborating with a civilian to steal property. This was a misuse of police power.
Mr. Baroudi was also guilty for not reporting the corrupt officers immediately he discovered the nature of their intentions. Judge Garling sentenced him to 18 months imprisonment with guaranteed probation after the first eighteen months. This case was a perfect example of police corruption, specifically caused by involvement with the underworld, which translates to an exposure to the growing lucrative crime opportunities. The result is in the manifestation of ‘noble cause corruption’, which is a consequentiality mentality that subscribes to the theory that “the end justifies the means”, or the “Dirty Harry Syndrome”, which the police in this case displayed (Stapleton 2003, 28). These negative outcomes that result from exposing police officers to crime and an unpredictable society are preventable through training sessions meant to redefine the police moral and ethical codes (Karras, McCarron Gray & Ardasinsk 2006, 78). However, most police departments hardly ever conduct such programs, either due to poor leadership, or due to inadequate funding.
The second case, Crown v Tran, involved a charge of “possession of illegal drugs.” Mr. Tran flew into Australia from Vietnam, where he had recently married. His wife was still in Vietnam as she waited for the processing of her visa. The Customs’ Officer at the airport had intercepted Mr. Tran upon arrival and discovered 865g worth of Heroin in the lower compartment of his suitcase. Mr. Tran swore that he was innocent and that the suitcase belonged to a friend, on whose request Mr. Tran was to deliver it to a certain address in Australia. Mr. Tran had packed and repacked the suitcase before embarking on his flight and during the second packing; he had noticed that there was a loose edge in the suitcase, which he had proceeded to bind. This turned out to be the section where his alleged friend had hidden the heroin.
The address that Mr. Tran showed to the police was in a different handwriting, however, when the federal police questioned him, his story did not add up. This is interesting, because it is possible that the federal police intimidated the defendant until he got confused and incriminated himself. The defendant was not fluent in English and so he had an interpreter. He also had a trial by jury, which means that the jury listens to the facts of the case, assesses the evidence presented before the court, then applies the law and logic to reach a verdict. Trial by jury is preferable to adjudication by a single judge, which may result in dire consequences for a defendant due to multiple influencing factors. A jury is selected randomly from the citizenry and one will likely find peers of the defendant, who are likely to be lenient and understanding of his situation.
Anyway, the judge directed the jury on the case by informing them “everything is not what it seems” and that if one makes a call and the other person does not answer, it may be due to any reason, not necessarily because they are absent in the room. With these instructions, he reminded them to consider all the matters of law in reaching their decision. Three days later, the jury came up with the verdict of “guilty”. It is important to note here that possession is a strict liability offence, which means that the intentions (including knowledge) of the defendant are inconsequential. The sentencing for this case is set for 13 October 2011. Despite the ruling made by the jury in this case, my opinion is that Mr. Tran’s judgment was unfair. This is because the investigations did not involve any DNA tests, yet such a test would be the best means to confirm his guilt or prove his innocence.
Many inmates in the Australian prisons have been proven innocent years after serving time, just because at the time of their arrest or conviction, those in charge shunned DNA testing (Karras, McCarron Gray & Ardasinski 2006, 65). It is necessary to adopt a post-conviction DNA testing procedure that would cater for the justice needs of those with wrongful convictions. The current system is adamant to provide for these needs because the general view is that this will result in a floodgate of litigation (Troedel 2007, 54). However, it would be prudent to confirm the guilt of convicts as this would reduce the budgetary requirements of maintaining an innocent inmate in prison for life.
The role of the judge is to adjudicate or decide the result of a case based on the facts in issue, and the evidence provided. He or she also has discretionary powers in terms of sentencing. There are two types of lawyers; the defense lawyers argue for the defendant whereas the prosecution lawyers argue for the state. The presentation of evidence is such that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution for it to prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” The defendant is the person accused of a wrongdoing and the plaintiff is the party that brings the case to court.
The jury is fully constituted when a panel of 12 or more randomly selected individuals sits on the bench to examine the proceedings of a case and afterwards pass a ruling. They must be impartial for their decision to hold, and the press or the public must not have influenced them in any way. They are sequestered to ensure their autonomy in passing judgments. The police are the legal enforcers of the law. Their duty is to maintain law and order, and they contribute to the judicial process by adducing evidence in an investigation, protecting vulnerable witnesses, and providing persuasive testimonies (Stapleton 2003, 24). The media is responsible for many pre-trials-by-the-media in Australia. It influences the public in forming opinions about parties to an ongoing case. The public can them alter the justice system through mass action, or by acting in a biased manner as witnesses for the accused.
When in court, the judges and lawyers need to wear robes. For barristers, they need a black court coat or a bar jacket, a white jabot or white bands with a white shirt and a winged collars. Lady lawyers need to wear dark skirts or trousers and their male counterparts should wear dark trousers. They should also wear a gown, which should be silken for Queen’s Counsel and ‘stuff’ for junior counsel. All this attire should be clean and neat always (Troedel 2007, 54). They should wear wigs for all criminal proceedings including appeals. However, this attire should not be worn during direction hearings or any other matter not heard in open court. The lawyers never address each other directly. They always address the court. They also refrain from speaking unless instructed to do so by the judge. However, there are exceptions to this rule, especially if the opposing counsel is out of his legal scope.
The other lawyer can object. All in court address the judge as “Your Honor”. The courts are accessible as they are numerous in every geographical jurisdiction and their proceedings are comprehensible to all in attendance including those whose native language is not English. They are provided with interpreters. However, the language spoken is full of legalese or legal jargon that a nonprofessional party cannot understand without subsequent explanations, which rarely occur.
During this research, both cases featured defendants who had legal representation. However, research conducted in this area indicates a growing trend of self-representation or lack of representation in criminal proceedings due to several reasons. Key among these is financial shortcomings of the defendants. Interestingly, although most of such people cannot afford legal representation, they are denied legal aid on grounds of having assets that surpass the threshold, or an income that surpasses this threshold (Karras, McCarron Gray and Ardasinski 2006, 78). However, these assets cannot realistically cater for the legal representation fee, and their income is already committed to other commitments that they cannot realistically abandon to seek legal representation. Therefore, most of them opt to do without it. The results include pressure on defendants to plead guilty even if innocent and to abandon cases, and increased costs for courts, and represented parties.
The judges and lawyers are not representative of the population at all. They belong to an upper social caste that is dominated by the wealthy elite and therefore, most of the society feels intimidated by them. They are in a world of their own and sometimes they cannot connect with the rest of society, which results in unfair verdicts or ineffective arguments in courts (Burns 2010, 225). All the above factors have a bearing on behaviorism because people tend to be reactive to factors that are affecting them. The continuing lack of public funding to support legal aid is a good example that has led to self-representation in courts. Another example is the intimidating stance of lawyers and judges, which inspires fear, anxiety and tension in the courtroom. These are not ideal conditions for propagating justice and the effect impugns on the original purpose of justice.
Conclusion
There is need for a system overhaul in the Australian judicial system. The current system is flawed and ineffective. It does not function to its optimum capacity. To administer unconditional justice, the judges and the lawyers need to interact with the society more, to understand social change.
Reference List
Burns, Kylie. 2010. “Reflecting Social Change: The High Court and Social Facts.” Torts Law Journal, 9 (4): 221-234.
Karras, Maria, McCarron Emily, Gray Abigail, and Ardasinski Sam. 2006. Access to Justice and Legal Needs. Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales.
Stapleton, Jane. 2003. “The golden thread at the heart of tort law: Protection of the vulnerable.” Australian Bar Review 135, 23 (3) : 24-29.
Troedel, William. 2007. “Guide to Judicial Conduct.” The Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated, 5 (7) : 50-62.