It was interesting to note how the court went about sentencing repeating traffic offenders who pleaded guilty to their crimes – the court would order the defendants to undergo a “Traffic Offender’s Program”, which if they satisfactorily completed, would significantly lower their sentence. This order by the Magistrate is a prime example of legal discretion in the criminal system, where the court takes into account a range of other factors besides legal arguments in sentencing the defendant.
An application for bail was also heard, for a defendant who appeared on the charges of “Breaking and Entering, Larceny of goods under $15 000”. The defendant was in police custody, and escorted before the court by two police officers through an isolated door in the far corner of the court room. Represented by a private solicitor, an application for bail was made and ultimately rejected by the court. Worth noticing was how the application wasn’t based on legal facts, but rather more on social, economic, and psychological factors; and how the rejection of the application was based on the defendant’s criminal record, which was less than impressive. Again, this shows the presence of discretion in the criminal legal system, with bias shown towards defendants with a record.
The Paramatta Local Courts were a lot different to the Hornsby Local Courts. Upon entering the complex, a security check was enforced, making sure that no weapons of any sort would be taken into the complex. Once inside the complex, however, it was immediately apparent that the Paramatta Local courts were more grandiose and modern than the Hornsby Local Courts. Whereas the Hornsby Courts looked more like an 1800’s cottage house, with eloquent furniture and a general ‘cosy’ feeling, the Paramatta Courts had ‘modernized’ colour schemes and sharp ‘cutting edge’ furniture, proving a rather serious mood to the legal process. Defendants here were quite solemn and grim, as opposed to the defendants at Hornsby, who were in a considerably ‘lighter’ mood.
Cases seen at the Paramatta Local Courts were much of the same nature as those seen at the Hornsby Local Courts, that is, traffic offences, assaults, and some drug offences. However, one notable case seen at the Paramatta Local Courts was where the defendant had pleaded guilty to a minor theft charge, and was awaiting sentencing by the court. Earlier, the defendant had pawned in his new wife’s wedding ring, in order to obtain enough money to apply for a bond of some sort. The Magistrate, in yet another display of judicial discretion, and perhaps out of sympathy, placed the defendant on a good behavior bond, and ordered a refund of the money used for the bond application, so that the defendant could obtain back his wife’s jewelry. It was a heartwarming moment, and once again showed that a host of factors besides legal issues are considered in a Magistrate’s judgment.
The local courts are the foundation of our Criminal Law System in Australia, handling the vast bulk of all criminal cases. As such, the local courts are often extremely busy, which was quite evident at both the Hornsby and Paramatta Local courts. While there wasn’t really a sense of urgency at the local courts, at times the court seemed to be cycling through cases rather quickly, with some matters taking only 10 minutes or less. The local courts also provided much information on the law, through the means of brochures and pamphlets, as well as counselors and advisors. Often, when the defendant looked lost in the legal process, the Magistrate would ask the defendants without representation if they wanted to see a counselor to be advised on their situation. As such, the local courts seems to be more ‘integrated’ into society than the higher courts, making sure the defendants have a smooth trip through our legal system.
The Drug Court
If the local courts seem very helpful and integrated into society, then the Drug Court of Paramatta is light years ahead in terms of social acceptance. More of a therapeutic program than a trial court, defendants report to court on a regular basis, and are awarded if they have not taken any drugs since the last time they reported in, or penalized if they have. The drug court operates with the specific intention to reduce crime associated with drug usages, to reduce drug usage altogether, and to integrate drug addicts back into society.
Because of it’s therapeutic nature, the court operates rather informally as compared to the other courts. None of the defendants were represented by private solicitors, the defendants who do need representation are provided with legal aid solicitors supplied by the court. The defendant also talks directly to the Magistrate, which was found to be quite perplexing at first, however, it seems to give the defendant the illusion of an equal standing with the Magistrate. Rounds of applause are not uncommon in the drug court after a satisfactory report given by the defendant, which provides incentive for the defendant to achieve the goals set out by the program. It seems as though the court focuses not on punishing the defendants, but rather helping them cope with their problem.
In all, the drug court is a refreshing method to cut and prevent crime in our streets. The idea behind the court is not new, hundreds of such courts exist today in the United States of America, but the adoption of the court in Australia is seen as a positive step towards the war on crime.
The District Court
The District Court at the Downing Centre was observed for the purposes of this report.
The District Courts at the Downing Centre are Majestic compared to the local courts observed at Hornsby and Paramatta. Much like in Paramatta, a security check was required before entry. Once inside, however, the grandness of the complex is immediately striking. One cannot help but feel in awe of the courts, with marble flooring, huge columns towering above the floor, smoked glass around every corner – the complex was very intimidating. It was also very easy to get lost, and court rooms are initially hard to find for the unwary.
The courtrooms themselves were also very intimidating. Generally poor lighting certainly would have a nerve wracking effect on defendants, and a spotlight over the Judge clearly shows who retains power in the court. Again, huge stone pillars encompass the room, seemingly serving no other purpose but to intimidate the defendant.
Cases heard at the district court were of a much more specialized nature than cases heard at the local courts. Cases involving the selling/importing of large amounts of drugs seemed to be the predominant issue that the district courts were trying to resolve, as well as numerous appeals from the lower courts involving a wide range of issues.
In one case observed, the defendant was placed in the witness box., being cross examined by the DPP. The entire process seemed extremely slow and painful, with the DPP taking his time to ask a wide variety of questions concerning a testimony the defendant had given to the police. The nature of these questions were rather strange, being that they all seemed to ask whether or not the defendant did this or did that, all over which was clearly listed in the testimony. There didn’t seem to be any sense of urgency in the court, at times, the court even seemed to be not progressing at all. It was clearly observed that the jurors present for the case seemed extremely bored, looking as if they had lost their interest in the case a long time ago.
In another case observed, (similarly a drug trafficking matter), a police officer was called as a witness for the prosecution. It was noted that while on the stand, the officer was very vague in his testimony, preferring not to give any definite answers without first referring to official records of some sort. This was most likely done in order to provide a solid, unquestionable testimony, but could also have been done in order to prevent self incrimination due to a perjury charge hanging over his head.
The District Courts are of course a lot more formal than the lower courts. The Judges and Solicitors are all donned in robes and wearing white wigs, and the defendants are presented neatly. Unlike the local courts, there was no real sense of urgency in the courts, with great attention paid to detail by not only counsels, but by the judge, who would often interject, asking his own questions about the facts brought up. The accused at the district courts seemed to look as if they fully understood the proceedings.
Conclusion
The Criminal Court System in Australia was entirely different to what was thought before attending the courts. From what was observed, McBarnet’s “Two Tiers of Justice” argument was seen to have good grounds, with an obvious distinction between cases heard at the local and district courts. Cases heard at Local court do seem trivial, and one has to wonder what the point is of clogging up the courts with minor offences. Cases heard at the higher courts do seem to be a display of the ideology of justice, as it was generally agreed that the cases were more interesting at higher courts.
Discretion seemed to also play in a huge part in our legal system, although maybe more so in the local courts than the higher courts. Discretion was also observed to play a critical role in the Drug Court, where the court often has to be a little lenient in order to achieve their goals in rehabilitating the defendants.
Some thoughts were also given to the idea that “The process is the punishment”, especially before sentence is handed down. Before receiving their sentence, many defendants seemed extremely nervous, and one can only imagine the torture they go through wondering what their future holds for them. However, the actual process they undergo seems just as torturous, within court they are intimidated by their surroundings, most of the time they are in a state of confusion not understanding what is happening with them, and society looks down upon them. Quite obviously, there is some sense behind this entire argument.
Overall, the courts in real life are a lot less exciting than their glorified counterparts in television dramas and mass media. Cases today seem to conform with McBarnet’s “Two Tiers of Justice” argument, in that cases are either extremely trivial, or of such importance that progress is painstakingly slow. However, on the whole, the system seems to be flowing effectively, and, except for the recommendation that trivial offences should not be heard at court, this report concludes that there are no major flaws in the courts that need changing in the near future.
Listing of Cases Observed