Which 2 courts hear criminal trials? - Magistrates Court - Crown Court 1. Where can summary offences only be tried? - At the Magistrates Court because they are a less serious offence. E.g.
Indictable offences are the more serious crimes such as murder, armed robbery, sexual assault, drug trafficking and arson. These offences are tried by a judge and jury in District or Supreme Courts. A preliminary (committal) hearing is held in Local Court before a magistrate to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for a ‘prima facie’ case. The prosecution is required to produce evidence and witnesses. The process of criminal prosecution begins when a person (usually a police officer) lays information before a court or a justice of the peace.
This tells us that civil law is for individual interest while criminal law is for public interest. It is not only the name that differs from the two categories of civil law and criminal law, the way of reaching a clear cut judgment is also relevant. In presenting evidence to indicate the defendant to be guilty has to be “clear and convincing evidence” and in criminal cases the substantial amount of evidence according to the same source has to be “Beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to prove the defendant to be guilty. Civil cases brought to court under this category are usually associated with personal disputes that can be sorted out with payments. Cases that are usually brought to court for civil law related matters are like copyright infringements, debt, evictions, partnership and inheritance disputes (under £30,00 dealt with at county court, any amount over £50,000 is sent straight to High Court) and other common complaints.
The Second tier would be District, superior, or circuit courts. These courts (courts of "general jurisdiction") are distributed geographically throughout the state for convenience and usually involve more serious civil and criminal claims such as felony prosecutions and major civil trials. Last but not least are the Appellate courts. These courts, known as the "courts of last resort," do not re-try cases, but rather review the record of the proceedings from earlier trials to determine whether or not the lower court made an error with its decision. State supreme appellate courts typically consist of five to nine members who rule as a panel.
It has adapted to the Australian legal system. It is a system of trial where, “…the two sides of the case try to present and prove their version of the facts and disprove the version of the other side.” A jury decides guilt or innocence, while a judge or magistrate guides the jury in areas of law, as well as deciding a suitable punishment for the defendant. In criminal cases in the adversarial system of trial, justice is achieved through the use of evidence. In the adversarial system, the standard of evidence that can be used to support an argument is high. This is seen in the statement “… the rules of evidence are considerably more strict [than the inquisitorial system].” This shows that the evidence that will be accepted is of reasonable quality and that it will less likely be made up.
The Act contains a Charter of Victim’s Rights which requires, among a number of things, respect for a victim’s dignity, victim’s compensation, protection from the accused, protection of identity and assistance during the criminal process. The Charter also introduces victim impact statements, which is allows the victim an opportunity to participate in the process by letting the court know how the crime has affected them. The judge has a discretion to hear and to take into account a victim impact statement in determining the sentence. Victim impact statements are only permitted for serious offences and are presented after the offender is found guilty, before the sentence is passed. In the case of McCartney v R (2009) A male found guilty of sexual assault was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, after the aggravating factors were considered, including the victim impact statement, it was concluded by the judge that the victim’s “life and studies have been totally disrupted by the event and suffered considerable distress.” The victim impact statement in this case influenced the sentence and the judge was able to effectively use his discretion to determine the best sentence for both the offender and the victim, by taking into account both the mitigating and aggravating factors.
Judges also deal with the issue of bail once established that there is enough evidence to hold a criminal trial against the defendant during the preliminary hearing. Judges decide on whether to grant bail, and if so at what amount and on what conditions. If any of the conditions are broken by the defendant, the judge can also revoke bail and issue a warrant for his or her arrest. Once the criminal or civil trial has begun, the judge presides over the courtroom (Meyer & Grant, 2003). When the jury reaches a verdict of guilty, the judge is responsible for following established legal guidelines during sentencing.
Question 1 Identify by means of a diagram the principal criminal courts in England and Wales. FIG 1 In reference to fig 1 the principal criminal courts in England and Wales, there are three main courts which are magistrates, crown and court of appeal. These courts deal with offenders on behalf of the state and the public and are there to maintain law and order and protect the society. The magistrates’ court deals with less serious or summary offences which may include, council tax, motoring offences, assaults and threatening behaviour. They also deal with both way offences which can be tried in both magistrates and or crown court.
United States Court Systems Melissa Graham Kaplan University PA 101 Unit 3 United States Court Systems Federalism in the United States, set forth by the U.S. Constitution, divides powers between the national and state governments. Within this division of power dwells a separate tier system for both federal and state courts, each holding supremacy over their reserved jurisdictions. The Federal Courts The federal courts system consists of a three tier structure of the Trial Courts, Intermediate Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court or Highest Court. Under the umbrella of this structure are the “Article III courts”, as delegated in Article III of U.S. Constitution, known as the Special Federal Courts, U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals (United States Courts, n.d.). The President of the United States appoints all judges which must be expressly approved by the Senate.
Primarily, the court systems of the two countries are grouped into several different levels of adjudication from the central to local levels. Secondary, both court system has two levels of adjudication is the first instance and appellate cases are divided into criminal and civil cases. Furthermore, both of the court system applies the appointment to judges. However, the populations of the systems differ greatly in the independence and operating principles of the courts and there is an important difference in their composition. Firstly, in the United Kingdom, parliament is the legislative body is also the highest authority in the court system of the United Kingdom, senate performing the trial through the appellate committee of the senate, parliament became the final level trial for all criminal and civil in the UK whereas in Vietnam, state power is unified, with the assignment and coordination among state agencies in the implementation of legislative, executive and judiciary.