Underlying Principles of the Criminal and Civil Justice System

What are the underlying Principles of the Criminal Law System?

• Independence of the Judiciary

• Presumption of innocence

• Rights of the accused

• Right to silence

• Double jeopardy

Why is the independence of the Judiciary an important element of Dispute Resolution?

Freedom of influence:

The courts must operate separately from the Executive (Government) and legislative branches.

• Ensures impartial dispute resolution.

• Judges decide cases based strictly on law and facts, not politics.

Where is the Presumption of Innocence protected in our Legal System?

The Core Rule: In an adversary legal system, all defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

The Burden Of Proof: because you are assumed innocent, the job of proving you committed the crime falls entirely on the prosecution (the state/police), not on you to prove you didn't do it.

Where it comes from: In australia: it isn't explicitly written in the Constitution but it is deeply rooted in common law (court traditions and past judgments)

Globally: it is recognised as a fundamental human right protected by international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Outline the rights of the accused:

Innocent until proven guilty: you are presumed innocent, and you have the right to remain silent.

Challenging the prosecution: you have the right to question (cross-examine) the prosecution's witnesses and challenge wether

Fair Preparation & Process: All parties must follow strict legal rules. This includes your right to see all the prosecutor's evidence before the trial so you can prepare your defence.

The Right to a Defence: You have the right to be heard and the right to legal representation (a lawyer) if you want it.

Trial & Double Jeopardy: You have the right to a trial by jury, and you cannot be tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy).

Right to silence:

• All defendants have the right to remain silent in almost all circumstances

• Must answer questions about identity eg name and address

• Defendants are not required to give arresting officers or police any other information about any offences for which they are accused.

• Refusing to give your name and address to a police officer is an offence under The Summary Offence Act s74A (3)

Explain the concept of Double Jeopardy and should it be subject to change in our Legal System?

★ The Core Rule: A person cannot be put at risk of being tried or convicted twice for the same criminal incident. The Safeguard: Nationally, Australians are protected against being repeatedly prosecuted under Section 4C of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

★ The Big Change (Post-2007): Historically, an acquittal (a "not guilty" verdict) was absolute. However, following a national Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreement in 2007, states changed their laws because some high-profile cases resulted in clearly guilty people walking free due to legal technicalities.

How does the concept of Double Jeopardy work in South Australia?

★ The South Australian Exceptions: Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA), the rule of double jeopardy no longer strictly applies to serious offenses (like murder, manslaughter, and aggravated rape) in two specific situations:

★ Fresh and Compelling Evidence: If new, highly reliable, and substantial evidence (like advanced DNA testing) comes to light that wasn't available during the first trial.

★ Tainted Acquittals: If the original "not guilty" verdict was achieved via a crime against the justice system (such as jury intimidation, perjury, or bribing a witness).

Inequalities in criminal/civil systems:

The adversarial principle dictates that a judge can only decide a case based on what the two parties present. However, this means a wealthy individual or a massive corporation can afford top-tier lawyers and expert witnesses, while an everyday citizen might have to represent themselves.

If the civil system relies entirely on the parties to build their own cases, is "procedural fairness" truly possible when there is a massive wealth gap between the two sides? Should civil judges be allowed to step in and investigate the facts themselves to protect a weaker party, or would that ruin their required role as a neutral referee?