Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
R v Singh (2012) |
-manslaughter case, involving domestic violence -offender claimed he was ‘provoked’ to kill his wife -found guilty of manslaughter and imprisoned -resulted in provocation reform due to the flawed nature of partial defence
|
|
|
R v Loveridge (2013)
|
-spurred big mandatory sentencing debate in regards to 'king hits'
-guaranteeing punishment after reforms can act as a deterrent and improve community safety -reforms massively impedes on indiv. rights to justice -Plea bargaining: defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter instead of trying to fight for murder charge. |
|
|
R v Franklin (2009)
|
-discuss mitigating factors -offender charged with kidnap and sexual assault, but prison term lessened based on factors of intoxication and psychological illness -can argue both ways -mitigating factors are essential in guaranteeing a just sentencing process tailored to individual crime -also can be viewed as restrictive to rights of the victim |
|
|
Dietrich v Queen (1992)
|
- historically significant case -first est. rights to adequate legal representation in court - helped form the NSW Legal Aid Commission - Works with trial process, and balancing rights of offender and the state |
|
|
R v Abraham (2013)
|
-Kiesha Abrahams case -offender received 15 years in jail -even in horrific, well documented circumstances, the max penalty was not utilised -max penalties are pointless because they are never used by judges who are reluctant to be punished by an appellate which rewards offender too often |
|
|
Andrea Patrick Case (1993)
|
- identity of offender not disclosed -common to use for Family Law -Victim was murdered despite a violence order placed on offender -Can argue that victims are not adequately protected -Good to talk about domestic violence -Or ineffectiveness of invest. process |
|
|
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
|
-details criminal actions which begins the process in first place -contains max penalties applicable for each offence -max penalties- vital in protecting civil liberties by preventing arbitrary use of power by a judge, plays into checks and balances approach of the separation of powers -max penalties also limit flexibility of sentencing and stagnate the legal response to criminal action. |
|
|
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
|
This act governs the aggravating and mitigating factors which can be considered in sentencing, as well as other considerations. Essentially, it places some restrictions on judicial interpretation.
|
|
|
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
|
- governs the appellate jurisdiction of courts (i.e. appeals) -essential inclu. to any discussion of an appeal case or effectiveness of Aust. courts -having process for appeals guarantees the serving of justice and limits impact of legal errors -can even argue that appeal process is too 'allowing', and thus restricts efficiency of the judicial hierachy |
|
|
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
|
- Every right contained by police is in here. - powers allow law enforcement to protect community interests and safety, by monitoring and preventing certain criminal actions. However, these additional powers come at the expense of civil liberties and individual freedoms. There is lots of potential for in depth argument here, based on specific cases and (particularly) media articles. One thing you should definitely mention is that LEPRA is continually being expanded to include new, even more intrusive powers. A big example is an expanded use of covert searches after the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Search Powers) Act 2009 (NSW) . There have been several instances of the NSW Law Reform Commission condemning the actions of police, notably in regard to the excessive use of arrests. Inquiries by the NSW LRC have found that arrests are NOT used as a last resort (how they are supposed to be used) in most circumstances. |
|
|
Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
|
-originally brought into force in 1978
- amended many times and it has been rewritten; shows that bail is a continuing area of law reform -key issue: balance between individual rights and community/victim safety -remand ignores that the innocent before proven guilty presumption is a HR -NSW LRC submitted 2012 report, prior to new act taking effect, suggesting bail should be a rebuttal presumption in all circumstance, that is presumption against bail shouldn't exist. |
|
|
Victims Rights Act 1996 (NSW)
|
-issue: balancing rights -introduced VIS, way for victims to play role in sentencing process -important for sensitive areas like domestic violence -use this as evidence for effectively guaranteeing the victims rights - can argue that CJS seems to invest too much time in protecting victims, it has forgotten to stop the criminals in the first place, sighting the ineffectiveness of bail laws and police powers which, if they worked, would prvent need for Victim Rights act in first place |
|
|
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
|
- juries are essential way of integrating community interests in judicial process -or they are inefficient and more prone to legal error and corruption -Jury Amendments (Verdicts) Act 2006 (NSW) did a lot to solve aforementioned issues |
|
|
Treaties |
- issue: balancing rights -where do rights come from? International Convenant on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR), protects civilians from arbitrary use of power by government. E.g. arrest without cause, suppressing political discussion. -this can tie in with bail -according to ABS in 2012, almost 25% of Aust. prisonesr where not convicted held in custodial remand. - clear evidence of Aust. failure to meet int. obligations under the ICCPR. |
