Justice was balanced to the victims, the offender and society within the case R v Siale [2017] NSWSC. Justice was served for the victim as the offender received a lengthy sentence for the crime committed. The offender gained justice as he had a fair trial in the eyes of the court. Justice was also received for society as they maintain the safety of the community, but also the rehibition of the offender to become a better member of society.
Justice was served for each party. For the offender, he was given a fair trial. With unbias Jury who handed down a verdict to the judge. The judge handed a fair sentence, being doing so it would be less likely to re-offend, less likely to drink and become violent again. The offender also had a right to decide his plea, which was not guilty of murder. The offender was also supplied with a defence barrister, who pleaded the offender's cause of assault causing death, while intoxicated. The rights of the offender also include the correct police powers. The offender turned himself into the police station where he was arrested. The police later interviewed him. The offender remained in custody until his trial. Throughout his trial, the offender had the right to express his remorse and tell the jury his side of events and the right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The offender also had the right to have mitigating factors heard by the jury. The offender plead guilty to assault causing death, while intoxicated. Although this plea was thrown out of the court. The offender also has the right to appeal against the sentence if he finds it unfair. The offender's barrister also tried to get one of the jurors acquitted because of peremptory challenge as the juror had limited English. This decision was again overturned as the juror had completed the HSC and Commerce in NSW. Allowing him to sit at the trial. Justice for the victims was served as the offender was sentenced to 24 years imprisonment with a no-parole period of 17 years. The judge quoting ‘this murder was a most violent crime.' Although this sentence could not bring the victim back, it is a long imprisonment term. The victim's parents and children were more affected because of the actions of the offender was the victim died instantly. The victim's sons now are without a father and parents without their child. The victim's family soon become the victims themselves. As Mrs Ventigadoo testified against the offender in court, she had rights. She gained information about the legal processes during and after the case. She also had rights against intimidating, physical threats of the offender and respect from the media. As the judge maintains the courthouse, he would've presided over these things. The court also heard victim statements from the victim's children demonstrating the significant harm and distress which was caused by the death of their father. The victims have a right to the protection of their identity, they cannot be contacted by the accused or defence lawyers during the trial. Their personal information such as their address will remain private unless the court needs it. The victims will also be treated with courtesy, compassion, cultural sensitivity and respect for your rights and dignity and told …show more content…
Society has the right to have justice operating effectively, this means a fair trial with the defender and the victim's compensation. society member will sympathise with and support the rights of the victim. Society members have the rights to basic human rights to be protected. The Society also believes the offenders do too, this refers to a fair trial and treatment of the accused. The rules that evidence must be presented a balance the rights of society and the accused. Inadmissible evidence cannot be allowed for the fairness of the trial. If the evidence is incorrect, it could lead to an appeal, which will affect society rights of safety. The way the offender was treated can cause community concern and media outrage. This is significant to society as human rights haven't been met, but also the victim's rights to not have media coverage. In R v Siale, Siale was denied bail, this is because leaves the victims and society at
Justice was served for each party. For the offender, he was given a fair trial. With unbias Jury who handed down a verdict to the judge. The judge handed a fair sentence, being doing so it would be less likely to re-offend, less likely to drink and become violent again. The offender also had a right to decide his plea, which was not guilty of murder. The offender was also supplied with a defence barrister, who pleaded the offender's cause of assault causing death, while intoxicated. The rights of the offender also include the correct police powers. The offender turned himself into the police station where he was arrested. The police later interviewed him. The offender remained in custody until his trial. Throughout his trial, the offender had the right to express his remorse and tell the jury his side of events and the right to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The offender also had the right to have mitigating factors heard by the jury. The offender plead guilty to assault causing death, while intoxicated. Although this plea was thrown out of the court. The offender also has the right to appeal against the sentence if he finds it unfair. The offender's barrister also tried to get one of the jurors acquitted because of peremptory challenge as the juror had limited English. This decision was again overturned as the juror had completed the HSC and Commerce in NSW. Allowing him to sit at the trial. Justice for the victims was served as the offender was sentenced to 24 years imprisonment with a no-parole period of 17 years. The judge quoting ‘this murder was a most violent crime.' Although this sentence could not bring the victim back, it is a long imprisonment term. The victim's parents and children were more affected because of the actions of the offender was the victim died instantly. The victim's sons now are without a father and parents without their child. The victim's family soon become the victims themselves. As Mrs Ventigadoo testified against the offender in court, she had rights. She gained information about the legal processes during and after the case. She also had rights against intimidating, physical threats of the offender and respect from the media. As the judge maintains the courthouse, he would've presided over these things. The court also heard victim statements from the victim's children demonstrating the significant harm and distress which was caused by the death of their father. The victims have a right to the protection of their identity, they cannot be contacted by the accused or defence lawyers during the trial. Their personal information such as their address will remain private unless the court needs it. The victims will also be treated with courtesy, compassion, cultural sensitivity and respect for your rights and dignity and told …show more content…
Society has the right to have justice operating effectively, this means a fair trial with the defender and the victim's compensation. society member will sympathise with and support the rights of the victim. Society members have the rights to basic human rights to be protected. The Society also believes the offenders do too, this refers to a fair trial and treatment of the accused. The rules that evidence must be presented a balance the rights of society and the accused. Inadmissible evidence cannot be allowed for the fairness of the trial. If the evidence is incorrect, it could lead to an appeal, which will affect society rights of safety. The way the offender was treated can cause community concern and media outrage. This is significant to society as human rights haven't been met, but also the victim's rights to not have media coverage. In R v Siale, Siale was denied bail, this is because leaves the victims and society at