Major Court and Tribunal Decisions

Question: Discuss about the Major Court and Tribunal Decisions. Answer: Introduction: The hearing with respect to the case of RP v The Queen [2016] HCA 53 was held in the high court on 21st December 2016 at 11 am. The court was preceded by Gageler J for the purpose of this case. This case concerned an appeal from Court of Criminal Appeal of the supreme court of New South Wales. In this case it was held by the high court that the previous court made an error with respect to its decision in this case where the court held that appellants conviction was reasonable in situation where there was no sufficient proof to oppose the assumption that a child aged 11 years had no idea that his acct accounted to a serious wrong morally. The case dealt with criminal proceedings with respect to capacity and criminal liability. The case was represented by H K Dhanji SC with J L Roy for the appellant and S C Dowling SC with N J Owens SC and B K Baker for the respondent. The Complainant and Appellant with respect to this case are half-brothers who are aged 6 years 9 months and 11 years 6 months respectively. In this case the appeal was allowed by the high court and it interpreted Doli incapax in a different way to that of the pervious court. The high court even set aside a few orders provided by the previous court. The court quashed the conviction and ruled a verdict of an acquittal. This part of the paper will discuss the similarities and differences between district/supreme and Magistrate courts in Australia. The major states in Australia comprises of supreme courts as well as district courts (Foster, 2013). The first level of jurisdiction at the state level is the magistrate courts. The supreme court of the state is the next level of jurisdiction which comprises of a general divisions or trial division along with a court of appeal. The supreme courts of the states have no limits on jurisdictions on matters arising within their respective states. However the Supreme Court in the states generally hears matters which have a value of more than $750,000 along with criminal matters which are very serious in nature. The court also deals with appeals which arise out of magistrate courts and other administrative tribunals of the state (Forsyth, 2015). The magistrate courts also known as the local courts in the state generally deal with matters which are less serious an d are preceded over by magistrates. Then functions of the local courts are different with respect to each state in Australia. For instance the local court of New South Wales deals with almost 90% of the criminal matters. In the Australian capital territory the local courts only deal with criminal cases to decided that the accused should be forwarded to the higher court or not. There are specific states of legislation for each state which covers the civil and criminal proceedings with respect to magistrate and supreme courts (Turton, 2015). There is no jury involved in the magistrate courts, a person who is legally qualified known as the magistrate presides over the hearings (Garnett, 2015). Magistrate or local courts generally exercise their powers on civil cases with respect to a value of $40,000 along with petty criminal matters such as bail applications, drink-driving and minor thefts. With respect to criminal offences which are more serious the magistrate courts can forward the case to a higher courts, this process is known as committal hearing (White et al., 2015). A few magistrate courts comprises of small claims tribunal, minor debts courts, coroners courts childrens courts and small claims tribunal. District courts in the state deal with a little more serious criminal matters such as rape, fraud and armed robbery along with civil matters more than the value of $250,000. The supreme courts of the state deal with the most serious criminal matters such as murder, manslaughter and major drug offences (Wallace et al ., 2014). Through this court visit it was analyzed that how courts proceedings with respect to criminal and civil matters are conducted in Australia. Through this court visit it was analyzed that the decisions of courts are not always correct and if a proper approach towards an appeal in taken it can be withheld by the higher courts. The researcher also learnt the basic principles of the doctrine of Doli incapax. The court visit was also beneficial for the researcher as he got more accustomed towards the general proceedings of the court and the decorum one should maintain within it. References: Forsyth, A. (2015). Major court and tribunal decisions in Australia in 2014.Journal of Industrial Relations, 0022185615575534. Foster, R. (2013). Towards Leadership: the emergence of contemporary court administration in Australia.International Journal for Court Administration,5(1). Garnett, R. (2015). Australias International and Domestic Arbitration Framework. InArbitration and Dispute Resolution in the Resources Sector(pp. 7-21). Springer International Publishing. Turton, D. J. (2015). Unconventional gas in Australia: towards a legal geography.Geographical Research,53(1), 53-67. Wallace, A., Mack, K., Roach Anleu, S. (2014). Work allocation in Australian courts: Court staff and the judiciary.Anne Wallace, Kathy Mack and Sharyn Roach Anleu,Work Allocation in Australian Courts: Court Staff and the Judiciary(2014),36(4) White, B., Tilse, C., Rosenman, L., Purser, K., Coe, S. (2015). Estate contestation in Australia: An empirical study of a year of case law.UNSWLJ,38, 880.