The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty, and because of this, the jury was effective in achieving justice. Ivan Milat brutally murdered eight people, and there have even been suggestions that he may have killed more. Had the jury found Milat not guilty, it would have been a disgrace. Eight families were robbed of family members and it would have been unfair if the violent offender was not brought to justice.
7. The verdict and whether it was a just outcome for the individual and society.
The verdict returned by the jury was that of guilty. However, the jury did not decide on Milat’s sentence. The sentencing judge sentenced him to prison “for the term of his natural life” for the murder of the seven people. Each murder carried with it a life sentence. What did the verdict mean???
This was definitely a just outcome for society, as justice was served. It was only fair that Milat be punished for murdering seven people. Had he not been imprisoned for the rest of his life, there is the possibility that he could have killed again. Not only was the outcome itself just, but the process of reaching that outcome was just. One of the elements of “justice” is that everyone should be treated fairly with no exception. Milat had a trial that any other person would have had, he had legal representation and had the opportunity to defend himself.
However, it is important to note that the outcome may not have been just for the individual, Ivan Milat. To this day, he still says that he is innocent. After the jury returned its guilty verdict, Milat was asked he had anything that he wanted to say – all that he said was ‘I’m not guilty of it. That’s all I have to say’. Even though the amount of evidence against him convinced the jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, if it ever did come to light that he was not guilty, this would not have been a just outcome for him.
8. Whether there will be an appeal.
After this initial case in 1996 when Milat was found guilty of seven counts of wilful murder, he appealed three times. The details of each appeal are:
1. Appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal in 1998.
Milat appealed on the grounds that the quality of his legal representation was not good enough. Because of this he argued that his common law right to legal representation had been breached. This right was established in Dietrich v The Queen, and Milat relied on this case in his appeal.
However, his appeal was dismissed by the court because they said that Milat could only be successful if the quality of his legal representation was so low that he would have been better off without it. The court said that the quality of legal representation provided by Milat’s defence lawyer Terry Martin’s was adequate.
2. Appeal to the High Court of Australia in 2004.
Milat appealed this time on the grounds that the first judge, Justice Hunt, had let the prosecution put a case to the jury which was not supported by its own witness. This appeal was also dismissed, with Justice McHugh saying that the appeal was brought out of time.
Even though Milat still claims that he is innocent, he has never appealed on that ground. This could be because of the amount of evidence against Milat that suggests that he did murder the seven people found in the forest. As Justice McClelland said, “the material provided by the applicant does not raise a doubt or question about his guilt”. In the article by Brett Cox, it also states that "there is overwhelming evidence that Milat was the murderer, and they are the simple facts of the case”.
.
Case 2: Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38.
1. Author and date of the article.
Virginia Bourke, 24-06-2006.
2. Facts of the case.
The plaintiffs were a married couple, Kerry and Craig Melchior. The defendant was Dr Cattanach. The Melchior’s did not want to have any more children and so they went to Dr Cattanach to have Kerry’s tubes tied. Whilst this procedure was supposed to sterilise Kerry, it did not. Four years later in 1997, Kerry gave birth to a son. The Melchior’s then sued Dr Cattanach in negligence because they claimed that he had been negligent by not providing sufficient advice about the risks of further conception. The case was first heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland where the Melchior’s were awarded $105,249 to pay for raising the child until he turns eighteen. Dr Cattanach then appealed to the High Court of Australia, claiming he should not have to pay the Melchior’s this amount.
3. Area of law.
The area of law in this case is civil law. Civil law is concerned with disputes between individuals, rather than disputes been individuals and the state (which is the case in criminal law). Because the dispute in this case was between two individuals – the Melchior’s, and another individual, Dr Cattanach, it was dealt with in civil law.
4. Court in which the case took place.
The case took place in the High Court of Australia in 2003.
5. The personnel in the case.
Judges:
- Justice McHugh.
- Justice Gummow.
- Justice Gleeson.
- Justice Heydon.
- Justice Kirby.
- Justice Callinan.
- Justice Hayne.
Plaintiffs: Kerry and Craig Melchior.
Defendant: Dr Stephen Cattanach.
6. Why a jury was used and its effectiveness in achieving justice.
The High Court of Australia is the court that has the most power. The seven judges mentioned above here every case and the verdict depends on what the majority of those judges decide. There are seven High Court judges for this reason – so that there will always be a majority. Because of this, a jury is never used in High Court cases, mainly because the High Court only deals with appeals. However, a jury was not even used in the Supreme Court trial of this case because it is a civil case, not a criminal case, and juries are not often used in civil cases.
7. The verdict and whether it was a just outcome for the individual and society.
The High Court dismissed Dr Cattanach’s appeal, holding that the doctor should be made to pay for his failure to properly inform the plaintiffs that even with the procedure, Kerry Melchior could fall pregnant.
Although four of the seven judges agreed with this decision, I do not think that it was a just outcome. Whilst the plaintiffs Mr and Mrs Melchior got the outcome that they wanted – compensation, I think that society will suffer. Justice is about fairness and morals, and I do not think that it was a moral decision on the court’s behalf. Children are a blessing, and it is not right for parents to think of them as an inconvenience. In the trial, Justice Heydon even asked the question, “how can the birth of a healthy child, or any child for that matter, be considered an injury rather than a blessing?”. In the article by Virginia Bourke, Justice Heydon is also quoted as saying “human life is invaluable in the sense that it is incapable of valuation”.
I do not think that it is fair for the child to grow up knowing that he was unwanted. However, one of the judges in the majority, Justice Kirby said that “it is difficult to accept that children in today’s age learning such facts would not realise, if explained to them, that the claim was brought simply for the economic consequences of medical negligence”. Even if this is true, I still think that the outcome of this case was unjust. Students at university who are studying medicine may even decide that they do not want to specialise in fertility because of the risk that they will be sued like Dr Cattanach.
8. Whether there will be an appeal.
As already mentioned, this case was first heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Dr Cattanach then appealed to the High Court of Australia, where his appeal was dismissed.
No further appeals can be made by Dr Cattanach because the High Court is the last court of appeal. Once an appeal is dismissed from the High Court, the case is completely finished.
