Evaluation of the ability of the criminal justice system toachieve the principles of justice
Students and teachers should note that sample answers to activities requiring student evaluation, such as this activity, will only be provided on this website for Chapter 1 questions. The intention is to provide students with an initial guide on how to approach these types of questions. It is then up to each student to complete evaluations contained within future chapters by manipulating the information contained in the relevant tables.
Question 1
The task word ‘discuss’ require students to consider both sides of something. In this case, ‘discussing’ the ability of the criminal justice system to achieve the principles of justice requires students to write about relevant strengths and weaknesses. For this activity, students should aim to cover the distinction between summary offences and indictable offences.
A discussion may include the following points:
- Minor offences are not sent to a court with complex, lengthy and expensive procedures – the Magistrates’ Court has simplified procedures and forms, and the filing fees for different actions are lower – this helps to reduce legal expenses for representation, and increase access to justice.
However, even hearings for summary offences have significant costs associated with them, access to a proper defence is still often out-of-reach for the average person– adverse costs awards, for instance, are when a losing party is ordered to pay the costs of being taken to court by the prosecution or police (these are in addition to the costs involved with their own representation and defence). Furthermore, indictable offences heard in higher courts are subject to greater delays than minor ones are, which decreases access – for example, the average timeframe for resolution through the Magistrates’ Court is 6-12 months; through the Supreme Court (Trial Division) it is 12-36 months.
- Court time and resources are allocated more effectively, which makes the system operate with increased efficiency and specialisation – courts that employ more personnel dedicated to time-intensive tasks and with specialised knowledge can dedicate those to more serious cases, ensuring parties receive fairness and due process. Giving the accused a chance to elect a summary hearing for a minor indictable offence allows them to make important choices regarding their access to justice – they can decide whether fairness would be best served by having a jury, or whether they would achieve more effective access by having the lower costs and time associated with the Magistrates’ Court.
However, while the accused will sometimes have the ability to elect a summary hearing for a minor indictable offence, this decision may be made on the basis of costs and resources and not what would deliver the greatest degree of fairness.
Question 2
The task word ‘evaluate’ require students to consider both sides of something, as well as express an opinion judging the relative strengths of the arguments. For example, a student might argue, based on evidence when referring to summary offences and indictable offences, that the criminal justice system does achieve the principles of justice. In this case, ‘evaluating’ the ability of the criminal justice system to achieve the principles of justice requires students to write about relevant strengths and weaknesses.
An evaluation may include the following points:
- Minor offences are not sent to a court with complex, lengthy and expensive procedures – the Magistrates’ Court has simplified procedures and forms, and the filing fees for different actions are lower – this helps to reduce legal expenses for representation, and increase access to justice.
However, even hearings for summary offences have significant costs associated with them, access to a proper defence is still often out-of-reach for the average person– adverse costs awards, for instance, are when a losing party is ordered to pay the costs of being taken to court by the prosecution or police (these are in addition to the costs involved with their own representation and defence). Furthermore, indictable offences heard in higher courts are subject to greater delays than minor ones are, which decreases access – for example, the average timeframe for resolution through the Magistrates’ Court is 6-12 months; through the Supreme Court (Trial Division) it is 12-36 months.
- Court time and resources are allocated more effectively, which makes the system operate with increased efficiency and specialisation – courts that employ more personnel dedicated to time-intensive tasks and with specialised knowledge can dedicate those to more serious cases, ensuring parties receive fairness and due process. Giving the accused a chance to elect a summary hearing for a minor indictable offence allows them to make important choices regarding their access to justice – they can decide whether fairness would be best served by having a jury, or whether they would achieve more effective access by having the lower costs and time associated with the Magistrates’ Court.
However, while the accused will sometimes have the ability to elect a summary hearing for a minor indictable offence, this decision may be made on the basis of costs and resources and not what would deliver the greatest degree of fairness.