1. Basic Information:
On the 13th April, 2016, I visited the Melbourne Magistrates’ and heard the case Singh v Prosecution. Mr Jagraj Singh is the accused and the Prosecutor is Senior Constable Lawson. This case is trialled in front of Justice Reardon.
2. Overview of the case
The case that I have heard is a summary offence. Senior Constable Wayne Barras and John Mizzi were on a spotter operation duty on the 14th January 2015 at Footscray Road, West Melbourne. At around 5:25pm, Mr Barras who was at the bus shelter with a laser detector, caught a red/maroon Holden Commodore driving at the speed 83km/h and 85km/h at a 70km/h zone. At that time, Mr Singh was travelling in the middle lane (total of three lanes). Mr Mizzi was in a police vehicle …show more content…
The advantage of not having a legal representative is that it will lower the cost of legal fees. However, the disadvantages of not having a legal representative are that the use of legal representative aims to ensure party prepare and present their case in the best possible manner. Secondly, the lack of legal representation can lead to imbalance of power between the prosecution and the accused. This way, the judge may be easier persuaded by the prosecution as the accused does not have as much legal knowledge as the prosecutor does. On the other hand, self representation may be disadvantageous because accused may have omitted vital information that can affect the outcome of the case. As the accused was unrepresented, Justice Reardon ensured that his right was protected by rephrasing to him the trial procedure in less complex …show more content…
Final result
The final decision given by Justice Reardon was that Mr Singh has to pay $295 for exceeding the speed limit when travelling in a 70km/h zone. In addition to that, he has to pay a $77 statutory cost. Justice Reardon has no order to cancel his licence. The decision was decided based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and Mr Singh’s cross examination on the prosecutor’s witnesses.
The matter was decided as I expected because Mr Singh rejected the opportunity when he was asked by Justice Reardon whether he would like to go to the witness box and present any legal arguments. As he failed to do so, Justice Reardon made his decision based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor and witnesses. In my opinion, a ‘just’ result was reached because I believe a fair trial is that both parties have the equal opportunity to present their case in front of an impartial
On the 13th April, 2016, I visited the Melbourne Magistrates’ and heard the case Singh v Prosecution. Mr Jagraj Singh is the accused and the Prosecutor is Senior Constable Lawson. This case is trialled in front of Justice Reardon.
2. Overview of the case
The case that I have heard is a summary offence. Senior Constable Wayne Barras and John Mizzi were on a spotter operation duty on the 14th January 2015 at Footscray Road, West Melbourne. At around 5:25pm, Mr Barras who was at the bus shelter with a laser detector, caught a red/maroon Holden Commodore driving at the speed 83km/h and 85km/h at a 70km/h zone. At that time, Mr Singh was travelling in the middle lane (total of three lanes). Mr Mizzi was in a police vehicle …show more content…
The advantage of not having a legal representative is that it will lower the cost of legal fees. However, the disadvantages of not having a legal representative are that the use of legal representative aims to ensure party prepare and present their case in the best possible manner. Secondly, the lack of legal representation can lead to imbalance of power between the prosecution and the accused. This way, the judge may be easier persuaded by the prosecution as the accused does not have as much legal knowledge as the prosecutor does. On the other hand, self representation may be disadvantageous because accused may have omitted vital information that can affect the outcome of the case. As the accused was unrepresented, Justice Reardon ensured that his right was protected by rephrasing to him the trial procedure in less complex …show more content…
Final result
The final decision given by Justice Reardon was that Mr Singh has to pay $295 for exceeding the speed limit when travelling in a 70km/h zone. In addition to that, he has to pay a $77 statutory cost. Justice Reardon has no order to cancel his licence. The decision was decided based on the evidence presented by the prosecution and Mr Singh’s cross examination on the prosecutor’s witnesses.
The matter was decided as I expected because Mr Singh rejected the opportunity when he was asked by Justice Reardon whether he would like to go to the witness box and present any legal arguments. As he failed to do so, Justice Reardon made his decision based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor and witnesses. In my opinion, a ‘just’ result was reached because I believe a fair trial is that both parties have the equal opportunity to present their case in front of an impartial