Court Hearing and Settling of Criminal Cases

Attended a case proceeding at Sydney Court of Criminal Appeal on April 15, 2016. During the session, two criminal cases were heard and settled. The first case was between IMM v THE QUEEN . In September 2014 a girl aged 13 (“the Plaintiff”) informed her three family members that the Defendant had been sexually assaulting her since she was young. The Plaintiff also reported the same to her best friend. The police conducted an investigation and later charged the Defendant with one incident of sexual intercourse with a minor (when the Plaintiff was at the age of 6) and other three counts of humiliating treatment with a child. At the trial, the Plaintiff presented her evidence that includes the relatives and her friend (“the Plaintiff evidence”) and was acknowledged into evidence beyond an objection by the Plaintiff’s counsel.

Read more info on primeessays.com

Justice Blokland admitted the evidence of the Plaintiff as provided in S.66 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT) ("the Act") that they were affirmed evidence vivid in the memory of the Plaintiff at that time and could not be prevented by the rule of hearsay. Under S.137 of the Act, Her Honor also declines to exclude the evidence of the Plaintiff as unfairly prejudicial to the Defendant. The Justice also admitted that the testimony of the Plaintiff was accusing the Defendant of once running his hand over her thigh while he was passing a message to her (“the tendency evidence”). In Section 97(1) (b) of the Act, the Justice Blokland verdict was: the evidence had significant probative value and adequately demonstrated that the Defendant had a sexual interest in the Plaintiff. On this basis, the panel found the Defendant guilty of the sexual assault. The Defendant was then sentenced to six years imprisonment with a period of 4 years and three months non-parole.

The Defendant appealed against his conviction on the ground that Justice Blokland had erred by acknowledging the evidence provided by the Plaintiff and that Her Honor had misdirected the panel thereon. However, the Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”) universally rejected the appeal as it can be referred to the charges and its probative importance offset any danger of the Defendant unfair prejudice. The grounds of the appeal are:

· The CCA trial justice did not err in acknowledging the tendency evidence from the Plaintiff.

· The CCA trial judge did not err in admitting the Plaintiff evidence.

· The CCA trial judge did not misdirect the panel of judges relating to the Plaintiff evidence.

The second criminal case was between BETTS v THE QUEEN (S281/2015). In October 2015, the judge Toner sentenced Mr. Joel Betts for inflicting injuries to his former girlfriend, Ms. Samantha Holland, with the intention of killing her which is contrary to the Crimes Act S27 of 1900 (“the Crimes Act”). He was further judged for confining Ms. Holland against her will with the intention of taking psychological advantage. The later violated S.86(2B) of the Crimes Act.

During the attack in the apartment where they previously lived together, Ms. Holland was repeatedly stabbed while Mr. Betts was also severely wounded. The Judge Toner after giving a 10% allowance for Mr. Betts’ guilty pleas, sentenced him to imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years. However, Mr. Betts consequently appealed against his verdict asserting among other things that the ruling judge erred:

(i) In realizing that his injuries were pertinent only to the question of special situations and therefore applicable to the term to be served in a non-parole way instead of relevance also to the head sentence, and

(ii) In realizing that the crimes were aggravated due to the victim being “vulnerable" in the context of S.21A (2) (l) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

On April 15, 2016, the Court of Criminal Appeal universally upheld these two bases of the appeal but dismissed two other appeals. Regardless of these errors, the Court of Criminal Appeal further upheld the sentence executed by Judge Toner. The ground of the appeal is:

· The CCA, when deciding whether a less severe verdict was necessary than that initially executed, erred in not taking into account the new evidence bearing the grounds of the Defendant’s offending.

On what was learned during the class, about the criminal and civil case under the law of tort; the definition, procedure of handling the civil and criminal cases was duly applied in the CCA that was attended. The process for handling the criminal and civil cases are set out in the criminal codes or other federal laws. They are generally of two types: summary conviction offenses and indictable offenses. The former constitutes the minor cases such as causing a disturbance or abuse and the latter are more severe and include intent to murder or theft. During the lesson we were able to learn that crime is a wrong act which involves the punishment. In the court proceedings, the two cases had a variable amount of punishment as it amounts to different criminal cases.

During our lesson, we learned that there may be a preliminary hearing where the judge examines the case to establish whether there is sufficient evidence on the part of Plaintiff and the judge makes a ruling based on judicial precedent. However, the Defendant is also given a chance to appeal on the grounds of the Criminal Acts. Later the Judge gives a verdict that is considered fair and not prejudicing any party as provided by the judicial precedent. In both cases above, the procedure for handling the criminal cases was dully followed.