3 The Court System

The Court System• Adversarial v Inquisitorial System• Alternative Dispute Resolution• Courts • The Doctrine of Precedent

• Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta• People Involved in Legal Disputes• Tribunals• Ombudsman

Adversarial System Each party fights out the dispute in court

This is to decide who has the best evidence to prove their case and defeat their adversary

Evidence is presented by one party and then the other

This is in the aim to cause serious damage to the original argument and involves evidence as well as cross-examination

Judge is an independent umpire

Ensures a fair trial by enforcing strict rules of court procedures and evidence

Judge or jury decides who wins

This is based on the laws that apply and the decision is final (unless they appeal)

Judge decides questions of law, jury decides questions of fact

[email protected] 11 Legal Studies

2

Inquisitorial System The judge conducts their own investigation into the evidence, before and during the court

case Basically, the judge takes over the roles of the disputing parties their legal representatives

By looking into the matter before trial begins the judge plays a central role in deciding what issues are important and what evidence should be presented

Evidence is often collected by the magistrate

The accused may be questioned several times before the charge is laid

Distinctions between police and judiciary are not as defined

No jury Judge decides questions of law and fact


3

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Court is not the only solution

Only a small percentage of disputes are resolved in court

Disputes arise when someone believes they have been wronged by someone

Can be from waiting in line too long (you feel wronged by the shop staff) to your sibling being murdered (you feel wronged by the murderer)


4

Ways to resolve disputes:

‘Lumping’ the grievance

Exit and avoidance

Redirecting

Naming, blaming and claiming

Negotiation

Mediation

Expert determination/case appraisal

Arbitration

Adjudication by a court/tribunal


5

Scenario #1:You arrive at your hairdresser appointment time and are kept waiting for an hour, causing you to be late for work and having your pay ‘docked’.

‘Lumping’ the grievance

You get annoyed, but don’t mention it. These things happen.

Exit and Avoidance

You decide never to go again – exit and avoid

Redirecting

You redirect the cause of the problem by deciding it wasn’t the hairdresser’s fault, but the person before you

By choosing any of these you have avoided conflict and it has not become a dispute


6

Scenario #2:Hairdresser leaves colour dye in your hair too long on your wedding day and you end up with bright purple hair.You complain and refuse to pay. He says you didn’t explain what you wanted properly and demands you pay $150.You rush to another hairdresser who charges $250 to take out the colour and give you what you want.

Naming, Blaming and Claiming

Named the grievance, blamed the hairdresser, claimed compensation of some sort. If the hairdresser denies it, you are in a dispute.

The rest of the options deal with how to resolve this

Negotiation

Compromise via negotiation between the two parties. The hairdresser might agree to redo your hair for no extra cost.

Mediation

If you can’t compromise, then a third person is needed. The third party tries to assist in resolving the dispute without a legally binding solution. What you do with the mediators resolutions is up to you.

Expert determination/case appraisal

Often used to assist mediation. You seek the opinion of an expert and they advise you of the best possible outcome.

If you cannot reach a solution from these, you can have a third part impose a solution on you.


7

Arbitration

You must agree on an arbitrator and be bound by their decision.

You may go back to the mediator and ask them to arbitrate for you.

This is more formal than mediation and is governed by relevant Arbitration Acts

Adjudication by a court/tribunal

This is a formal hearing and testing of the evidence

An adjudication is made, which means the judge will impose a decision on both parties which is legally binding this is what we will look at next!


8

Courts

Two roles of courts:

Resolve disputes

Determine if the law has been broken and uphold those laws to society


9

Jurisdiction (the authority of the court to hear a certain matter)

Geographic jurisdiction – based on where the offence was committed

Ie. An offence committed in Qld would not usually be heard in a WA court

Civil and criminal jurisdiction – based on the nature of the offence

Most courts can hear both of these cases

Original and appellate jurisdiction – based on the when the case is heard

Original is the first time a case is heard, appellate is every time after that


10

A case is first heard in the original jurisdiction

If you lose on this occasion you can appeal

You cannot appeal simply because you didn’t like the judge/magistrate’s decision, there must be a valid legal reason

Your case is then heard by a higher court


11


12

High Court of Australia

Original/Appellate

Supreme Court Qld

Original/Appellate

District Court

Original/Appellate

Magistrates Court

Original

Federal Court

Original/Appellate

Family Court

Original/Appellate

Federal Magistrates Court

Original

Hierarchy of Queensland & Federal Courts

See also the PDF of the same name on Learner.Link for more detailed information as well as p.28 of the textbook

Hig

hes

tLo

wes

t

One event can lead to both a civil and criminal case, for example…

Civil Case

Rihanna is seeking compensation from Chris after a car accident

Chris’s car hit Rihanna’s car, damaging it and also injuring Rihanna

The person bringing the case is called the plaintiff

The person who is being sued is called the defendant

The case name will be in the format of plaintiff v defendant (the ‘v’ is said as ‘and’)

What will this case be called?


13

In a civil case, the plaintiff’s lawyer must prove the case (prove they are right)

Rihanna must prove why she is entitled to compensation

This means the plaintiff has the burden of proof or onus of proof – basically means, they have the job of proving their argument; the burden is on them

Rihanna has to prove that the defendant is legally responsible for the injury or damage suffered and there are legal principles that entitle her to compensation


14

The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities That the case described by the plaintiff is more likely than not to be true

Rihanna has to prove that her case is stronger than the defendant’s It doesn’t have to be much stronger, 51% likely to be true is enough, 49% is not

Once the plaintiff has proved their case, it is up to the defendant to prove that there are reasons why the plaintiff should not win

This means the defendant’s lawyer has the onus of proof in relation to any defences to the action Chris might hold the defence that Rihanna was speeding

If he can prove that it is 51% likely she was speeding and that this caused the accident then he will win the case

In a civil case the defendant is found liable or not liable to compensate the plaintiff


15

Remember, when someone commits a criminal offence, the Government takes legal action against them

So, let’s say the Govt charges Rihanna with speeding

The victim, Chris, makes a complaint to the police who investigate the accident and could charge Rihanna if satisfied

The Government lawyer is called the prosecutor, and they aim to prove the case against Rihanna – she is the defendant

The case name will be R v defendant, or The Queen v defendant or The Crown v defendant – R stands ‘Regina’ or ‘Rex’, the monarch

What would the case now be called?


16

FYI: Rihanna’s real name is Robyn Fenty – Rihanna is her middle name…Wikipedia said so

In a criminal case, the Govt has to prove Rihanna has broken the law – they have the onus of proof

The onus of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt

The Govt must show the jury that there is no doubt Rihanna was speeding

If there is some good reason to doubt whether the defendant broke the law, they should be found ‘not guilty’

In a criminal case the defendant is acquitted or convicted


17

In an appeal a higher court will decide if it agrees with the decision of the previous court

If it disagrees, it can overturn the decision

An appeal is not a re-trial, it is just a re-considering of the evidence

A court hearing an appeal operates with a Full Court – this means there are several judges and no jury

In an appeal the case is named as appellant v respondent

So if Rihanna appeals her guilty charge of speeding, what would the case name be?

If Rihanna won the civil case against Chris, and then Chris appealed, what would that case be called?


18

The Doctrine of Precedent

Common law is based on the doctrine of precedent

Doctrine of Precedent: idea that case decision-making needs to be consistent; when deciding a case, a judge will consider how similar cases were decided previously


19

You get in trouble for handing in your assignment 1 week late, but your teacher lets you off because a family member passed away

Next time an assignment is due, your friend hands it in 1 week late and expects the same treatment because they also had a family member pass away

You get in trouble for handing in your assignment 3 weeks late, but you explain that your house burnt down and you lost everything, and so your teacher lets you off

Next time an assignment is due, your friend hands it in 3 weeks late, saying that they couldn’t connect to their printer, the teacher gets cranky and marks their rubbish draft assignment instead

What’s the difference and how does it relate to the definition of precedent?


20

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

In scenario one, your friend would rightly expect the same treatment, and would complain if they didn’t get it (assuming they knew about the extension your teacher gave you)

In scenario two, your friends ‘case’ isn’t similar enough to be treated the same as yours


21

The precedent systems aims to ensure that like cases are decided alike

This ends with consistent decision-making

Which in turn leads to a respect for the legal system

If the decision was different in scenario one earlier for your friend, then respect for the systems and policies of the school and/or teacher would falter

Judges need to be impartial – not take sides – if the teacher in the scenario liked you better than your friend, and this was the basis of their decision-making, it could turn out quite unfair


22

Two types of precedent:

Binding precedent

Persuasive precedent


23

Binding precedent rules:

Courts must accept and use any relevant legal principles and rules decided by a higher court

If there are conflicting relevant legal principles from multiple higher courts, it must accept the principles from the highest court

Cases in the original jurisdiction of a court with an appellate jurisdiction must accept the decision of their appellate counterpart/same court as a Full Court


24

Persuasive precedent rules:

A court does not have to accept the legal principles of a lower court

A court does not need to accept any decisions made by that previous or equivalent court (but they often do)

If there are is no precedent in a higher court, the court may look to other jurisdictions, such as other states or countries (with similar legal systems)

The court at the top of the hierarchy (the High Court) may use principles developed in other countries


25

How precedent is used in common law

How alike do cases have to be to be decided the same?

It is only the reasons for the decision that are classified as precedent

Similar issue cases are important, not similar fact cases

Example:

A District Court judge is dealing with a charge of assault against a young man. The police claim that the assault took place on the beach at Surfers Paradise late at night. The accused person admits that he punched the victim. However, he says he did it after the victim threatened to stab him. (ie. Self-defence, which is legal in Qld)…the judge is aware of two precedent cases:


26

Case 1: Last year, the High Court was considering the case of another person involved in an

incident on the beach at Surfers Paradise late at night. The accused person was charged with raping a woman. The case involved whether the woman consented to the acts taking place or not. The court decided that she did not, and the accused person was found guilty of rape. The court said that just because the woman agreed to go to the beach late at night with the man, and kissed the man, did not mean that she consented to having sexual relations with him.

Case 2: Five years ago in Rockhampton, the Qld Supreme Court considered a case involving two

men who had been drinking at a hotel. One of the men was charged with assault after he hit the other over the head with a bar stool. However, the court found him not guilty of assault. The victim had threatened the accused with a broken glass. The court concluded that the accused person was acting in self-defence.


27

Which precedent should the judge use? Case 1 or Case 2?

Consider whether the facts or the issues are relevant.


28

Case 1 has some similar facts, but is a different issue – rape is very different to assault and self-defence

The reasons for the decision of case one are to do with the fact that no consent prior to sexual relations can constitute rape, no matter the other person has done

Case 2 is relevant because it decided when a person could be said to be acting in self-defence, which is similar to the case at hand


29

Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta The reasons for a case decision are important because they can become part of

common law

The legal term for these reasons is the ratio decidendi (Latin for ‘the rationale for the decision’) – sometimes ‘ratio’ for short

The ratio can be hard to work out

Cases can be long

Judges say things that are irrelevant and unnecessary to deciding the case

The legal term for these statements that are not part of the decision is obiter dicta (Latin for ‘something that is said in passing’) – sometimes obiter for short


30

Example, using the Surfers Paradise case from before:

The court decides that because the man feared for his safety and did not use excessive force, he is not guilty of assault on the grounds of self-defence. However, the court added that if the man had used much more physical force, or used a gun, this may have been excessive force and he may not have been able to claim self-defence. The court stated that people have a right to feel safe walking on the beach.

What is ratio and what is obiter?


31

Example, using the Surfers Paradise case from before:

The court decides that because the man feared for his safety and did not use excessive force, he is not guilty of assault on the grounds of self-defence. However, the court added that if the man had used much more physical force, or used a gun, this may have been excessive force and he may not have been able to claim self-defence. The court stated that people have a right to feel safe walking on the beach.


32

Ratio decidendi – these are the reasons for the decision

Obiter dicta – not necessary for the court to say this.However, when could it be useful?


33People Involved in Legal Disputes For this topic, you will independently research who the people involved in

legal disputes are

ie. Without your friends, but feel free to ask Google (or even Wikipedia as a starting point*) and your teacher

A good place to start is your textbook, pp30-32

From this, you can do your own research to find out extra information

Find diagrams of the layout of the court room for a civil and a criminal trial

Make sure they are Australian/Queensland based – we don’t need information on Malaysian, Peruvian, Swedish, Nicaraguan or any other countries courts

From the information you have gathered, create a short informational PowerPoint – as if you had to teach it to a, let’s say, Year 11 Legal Studies class…

* Wikipedia is good to start from, not to reference. DO NOT use it as a reference point for assessment work

3 The Court System

Law