Frameworks in health and community settings - Court Visit

Frameworks in health and community settings

(Court Visit)

Physical layout of the court.

The courtroom 1.3 is located on the first level of Downing Centre. The room itself is a size of a specious livingroom that has been filed by large number of chairs and a few desks. The magistrate seats on the most elevated step of the courtroom. This elevation allows him to look down on other personnel of the court, showing that he has all the power in this court. The chair and desk of the magistrate’s associate occupy the next step down. Chairs and desks of defence lawyer and the prosecutor first flee the space on the third step down. The defence lawyer seats on the right hand side of the magistrate while prosecution seats on the left hand side of the magistrate. Behind the defence lawyer sits the accused and behind the prosecutor the victim. The rest of the space that is running down the middle all the way to the entry door is filled with chairs which are usually intended for public. On each side of the court room there are two short sealed areas of chairs for jury if required in the case hearing and one long row of chairs for public use.

Personnel involved in the case and their roles.

Prosecutor: The main role of the prosecutor in this case was to represent the society before the court. His function is to prove that the accused is guilty of the crime with which they have been charged. Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appoints the prosecutors. Prosecutors are barristers and there fore subject to the professional and ethical standards of the Bar.

Defence Lawyer: Both the solicitor and the barrister may represent the accused in the court. The role of the defence lawyer is to represent the client before the court to the best of their ability. The defence tries to cast a doubt on the prosecutions case by discrediting prosecution evidence and introducing their own.

Magistrate: magistrates preside over Local Court and are addressed as “your worship”. The Chief Magistrate, who is independent of government, appoints the magistrates. In the court case, the magistrate must both determine the innocent or guilty of the accused and pass the sentence.

Magistrates associate: the role of the judges associate is to record all the notes, organize all the documents and pass paper work and files form defence lawyer and prosecutor to the judge and vice versa.

Bases of the Case.

Magistrate Dodd first sentenced the accused Mr. Dib Riscalla on 22/8/2003 for 2 years of imprisonment as a result of committing a number of offences. These offences included:

♦Cultivating more then the legal limit of a prohibited drug. This is Drug offence which is covered under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).

♦Theft and Larceny. This falls in Economic offence and is covered by Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

♦Drug Taking which is a part of Victimless crime and is covered under the Summery Offences Act 1988 (NSW) and the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

However magistrate later ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Magistrate Dodd first sentenced the accused Mr. Dib Riscalla on 22/8/2003 for 2 years of imprisonment as a result of committing a number of offences. These offences included:

♦Cultivating more then the legal limit of a prohibited drug. This is Drug offence which is covered under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).

♦Theft and Larceny. This falls in Economic offence and is covered by Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

♦Drug Taking which is a part of Victimless crime and is covered under the Summery Offences Act 1988 (NSW) and the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

However magistrate later suspended the decision and Mr. Riscalla was released on good behavior bond for two years. According to Section 12 bond the magistrate has the right to suspend his initial decision of imprisonment and can release the accused on the good behavior bond. This only applies for sentences up to two years. If the individual breaches the bond, the magistrate may cancel it and order the offender to serve the term of imprisonment originally set.

On 23/10/2004 Mr. Riscalla was arrested as a result of breaking the conditions of the bond and assault of a police officer while being searched at a friends house. On that same day as a result of Bail Act 1978 (NSW) Mr. Riscalla was granted bail. At the beginning of this year the accused had to answer to summons, as the court wants to know whether the accused is pleading guilty or not guilty. Due to the fact that Mr. Riscalla pleaded not guilty the case was then moved to be heard on 13/5/2005.

Rights of the accused.

The accused has the right to a fair trail. This means that the process is open, evidence is presented correctly, there is no bias in the process and that the verdict is arrived at through an examination of the facts of the case. It also means that accused has a right to an appeal if necessary. The defence protects the interests of the accused because that person is innocent until proven guilty.

Case Proceedings.

The basis of the common law is that Mr. Riscalla is innocent until proven guilty. It is the role of prosecution to put into the minds of the magistrate a reasonable doubt as to the guilty of the accused, as the burden of proof in criminal trials such as this one is to find the accused guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. The prosecutor opened the case, presenting the evidence that he felt should convict the accused. Firstly he outlined that the accused Mr. Riscalla is here on this day due to two reasons, breaking the conditions of the bond and also assaulting a police officer. The Prosecutor goes on by presenting evidence more in depth as he describes the conditions of the bond broken which in this case were good behavior, drug rehabilitation and community service. The prosecutor informs the magistrate that Mr. Riscalla has not made any attempt in rehabilitating him self and controlling his addiction to marijuana and drugs. Also he makes it clear then Mr. Riscalla performed no community service and on top of breaking this two bond conditions he committed another crime in process by assaulting a police officer. The prosecutor then assisted the judge with the reports and letters from the drug rehabilitation center and the community service centre so that the judge may have all the evidence in front of him.

After giving some time to magistrate Dodd to examine the reports prosecution went on calling their only witness the police officer that was assaulted by the accused. Firstly the officer was asked to swear on oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth before any questioning began. The prosecution simply asked the question that explained in what way and how Mr. Riscalla assaulted him as he try to search him at the accused friends house. Prosecution also asked the victim to recall the emotional state of Mr. Riscalla and to state what reason did he have for Mr. Riscalla’s search. The police officer stated that he was only answered the call, which was made earlier by neighbors about noise and disturbance. One he got there he felt that the Mr. Riscalla and his associate were under influence of drugs, so he approached to search the premises and the two gentlemen. This is when Mr. Riscalla refused the search and started verbally abusing the police officer as well as making threats. After the testimony was completed the prosecution rested their case and allowed the Defense lawyer to cross-examine the witness. The defence also proposed few questions to the police officer to try to state the fact that he had no right to search the premises and the accused without a warrant, and once the Mr. Riscalla refused to be searched he wasn’t allowed to push and conduct the search. With this cross-examination the prosecution case was concluded. The defence lawyer then as he has the legal right to asked the magistrate Dodd to find that no case against the accused has been established and that accused can be acquitted. However as expected magistrate Dodd disagreed with the defence lawyers, as he found that there was a case against the accused. Now it was the defence’s turn to present their arguments.

The defence lawyer opened his argument by firstly addressing the assault charges brought against the accused. He stated that the police officer had no right to search his client without a warrant, and as a result of his actions the accused was disturbed and overwhelmed by panic acted irrationally. He went on by using the defence of “Automatism” by claiming that the accused was not in control of his actions at the time of the criminal act being committed as he was under high consumption of drugs. As this was said the defence lawyer passed on the report that included blood test results and the drug substance level found in Mr. Riscallas when he was tested that day. The defence lawyer then proceeded by using the defence of “Substantial Impairment of Responsibility” also refereed to as ‘Diminished Responsibility’ which claimed that Mr. Riscalla suffers from an abnormality of mind that impairs his mental ability. The defence went on by stating the conclusion of Dr. Roberts Psychiatrist who found out that Mr. Riscalla suffered from Organic syndrome, psychosis as a result of drug use and one personality disorder as a result of a massive head injury and constant drug abuse. The magistrate allowed the “hearsay evidence” to stand as it was from a health professional. The defence lawyer concluded that abnormal behavior and psychosis was the reason for committing the assault and breaking the good behavior bond. With this evidence the defence closed their case and it was felt to magistrate to decide on the verdict.

The magistrate after summarizing the case and what he has heard in the court found the defendant guilty. Magistrate stated that the accused broke the good behavior bond only after a year and under the Section 12 Bond the magistrate had no choice but to cancel it and ordered Mr. Riscalla to serve the term of imprisonment originally set. Magistrate stated that crime has been committed as both “mens rea” and “actus reus” were proved to have occurred. However the magistrate acquitted Mr. Riscalla of the assault charges as he found that the defendant did suffer from “ Substantial Impairment of Responsibly”. As a result of that Mr. Riscalla was sentenced for two years imprisonment, with non-parole period for eighteen months. He was arrested and taken away as his sentence started on 13/5/2005 and finishes on 13/5/2007. The defence lawyer assured Mr. Riscalla as he was being taken away by a police officer that he will launch an appeal in next 24 hours.

Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness of the Law and the Legal System.

The symbol of the laws is the blindfolded figure carrying a set of scales and a sword. The blindfold represents the fact that the law is blinded to any influence: it acts without fear or favour. The scales are the balance upon the execution of the law and the sword is the weapon of just punishment. In the ideal world this would actually represent the legal system, but as witnessed in Mr. Riscallas case the law system is far from such description. The major problem is that criminal justice system “prohibitive”. Some people can not afford to achieve justice. The bases of the common law system is supposed to be that accused is “innocent until proven guilty”. If only the guilty are to be placed in jails, what happens to the remand prisoner or those that are kept in prison waiting for the outcome of the appeal (Mr. Riscallas situation). If the non-guilty verdict is delivered, the time is not compensated. On the other hand appeals are time consuming and as well as expensive. The concept of bail supports the rich, some cannot afford bail and have to accept remand. The adversary system is “flawed”: convincing the magistrate of the argument rather then the pursuit of truth does not bring about justice. In toadies society there is no such thing as just punishment. Many punishments do not appear to fit the crime. Punishments such as fines do not punish rich and poor equally. Imprisonment does not always rehabilitate the prisoner. Many of the prisoners are victims of further offences in jail. Prison dehumanizes inmates and returns them to society in a worse state then when they were incarcerated. Eventhough there are many faults in today’s legal system there are few positive things that could be associated to symbol of the law. The “doctrine of separation of powers” means that judges can conduct trials without interference from politicians and police. The concept of “rule of law” which allows all people to be equal under the law. There are strict rules in place so that all arrest are lawful. The laws place strict rules to ensure that courts run justly for example that all evidence is presented in court correctly. In dealing with just punishment, it is suggested that punishment should satisfy societies wishes. The use of fines, bonds and other non-custodial sentences help free up the space in jails. Fines put revenue back into society and community services provide benefits to the community as a whole.