Understanding Case Law And Legal Precedents

Types of Case Law including business, criminal, civil and family law segments

Question:

Discuss about the Australian Constitution and Evidence Act.

Case law is a section of the common law that involves higher courts designed for appeals against the high court decisions. Clients seek the interpretation of constitutional provisions in these courts. Based on statutes, the precedents provide binding decisions done within the legal mandate. There are different types of case laws including business, criminal, civil and family law segments. Each of these cases has specific steps or procedures undertaken before an appeal. For example, a civil case involves pleadings, motions, trial, and appeal. This may be a case of individuals or groups. Corporate disputes include violations by workers while in criminal cases the accused person faces convictions for crime. The client needs advice on the updated case law, which works on its own principles[1]. Unlike common law, which has its basis on customs and unwritten law, case law is statutory. Important considerations in a case include guides on how to handle the case, instructions, frequent questions, alternative information and advice. Possible appeal against conviction occurs when an aggrieved party is dissatisfied. This takes place at a higher court and should be within the stipulated timelines. The court hearing has different outcomes and when the court of appeal affirms a decision, it means that it supports or is in agreement with the courts decisions. The high court may also reverse or overrule a court decision.[2]

The case example involves a client who is facing convictions of an offense but refuses to answer questions because of incrimination. The 1977 Evidence Act defines the privilege of a witness in a court stating that the witness “shall not be compelled by virtue of an order under section 37 to give any evidence which the person could not be compelled to give “[3] n state proceedings or other courts. However, there are exemptions in the case where a judge gives an order based on s15 (1)[4]. The judge, in this case, might have had a supporting statement, which subjected the accused to give the information. However, the court convicts the client as he declines to give the court order. On the Appellate jurisdiction of High Court, the law allows the high court to listen to appeals, orders, and sentences[5]. All judgments need a just hearing and the court exercises its federal jurisdiction as the Supreme Court of the State to establish the law. It is also the constitutional mandate of the court to observe the fundamental human rights as part of the rule of law.[6] A client has a right to remain silent in a court of law in except when there is no legal representation. In this case, the client did not have a lawyer. The client may also remain silent except in a criminal case, where there is a serious offense warranting for the release of information.[7]This led to the contempt of court in which the accused was considered disobedient to the court. This led to the contempt of court in which the accused was considered disobedient to the court. This happens when investigations on the alleged crime are evident. If the consequences are dire then the judge may deny the right of silence. Still, the need to respect the dignity of the client and his privacy was necessary[8].

Procedures Undertaken before an Appeal

The concurrent sentence may have been any type of offense. It is possible the accused was in court for a criminal offense. In this case, the Australian constitution has consideration for the serious issue such as public law, rule of law, and constitutional implications. If the judge took an interpretative approach then he would favor upholding the law and not fundamental human rights. Chapter III jurisprudence works together with Chapter 5, which points out the Presumption of Innocence as used in the reverse onus where the client needs to provide a burden of proof[9]. The judge must have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused bore the guilt of the offense. The 1995 Evidence Act supports international treaties such as the Human Rights Committee[10]

Despite the client’s rights, the judges are under obligation to follow all interpretations of the constitution under the doctrine of precedence. On the other hand, there is a possibility of a prima facie, in which the judge may have had enough evidence in the implications for a conviction. This is the case because the client had an opportunity to answer a few questions. Client’s concerns about his answers working against him came true after the conviction. However, if the judgment was wrong, then there was an abuse of process[11]. The s15 (1A) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) says that failure to give answers during a trial is contempt of court and is punishable and attracts a three moths jails term[12]. There are possible reasons why the judge took that twist. The client who agreed to testify ends up in jail for a cumulative jail term. The court of appeal expects that the high court judge acted out of professionalism because this was a trial and not a pretrial. During the preliminary stages of the investigation process, there are gaps in information. A case law goes through different stages and Chapter III jurisprudence provides ideas for the validating the s15 (1) and s15 (1A) clauses. This what the justice system would consider the criminal due process when dealing with criminal justice.

Having focused on Chapter 3 of the Australian Constitution 2016 and Evidence Act ( Qld) 1977, s15(1) and s15(1A), it is important to consider whether the Constitution Act gives the judge the power to ask the client of the client is a witness for information. Several cases like the case Petty and The Queen bring out the strengths and weaknesses of the legal process and directions for hearing[13]. In this case, the pretrial silence came into effect as the accused person opted to withhold information through silence. This case brings out a constitutional ground under which the justice system interacts with the human being. The client’s refusal to testify would have been out of fears of contradicting himself. This is risky because a person could end up in jail out of unclear circumstances. Judges and attorneys are aware of the risk of trying to impose guilt on a client and the prosecution has to ascertain the relevant facts.[14] When administering justice, legal questions arise from the facts presented. In this case, there are questions about what type of accusation the client faced. Judges use criteria for separating what is factual, and what is simply hearsay. Since there is no substantial evidence in the underlying circumstance, the client places himself in danger of prosecution because of the underlying consequences.

Importance of Updated Case Law

Making inferences from the facts helps the judge to perceive relevant information for a fair judgment. If all information used was legal, factual and without contradiction then the evidence is reliable. Every release of information calls for a rationalized thought to prove the innocence of the accused. The appellant in the case needs to strengthen his reasons for demanding a fair trial. This calls for inferences on the evidence and categories of explanations. Incremental circumstances with different convictions as seen in the case reveal the limitations of a high court and the superiority of the Supreme Court. Ruddock v Vadarlis, federal court case featured in 2001 an appeal came after initial proceedings and a trial leading to the issuance of an injunction. [15]. In another case, the between the Commonwealth and Kreglinger, constitutional principles define then limitations.[16] Often the judgment placed during a trial reinforces legal arguments.

Ascertaining information in a case law protects the violation of human rights and it gives judges an opportunity to deliver fair judgment. The trial stage of the case depends on concrete information when passing judgment. The case may be ongoing while investigations continue in order to raise arguments in support of the truth.[17]Australian statutes in chapter 3 support other legislation such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act, which gives direction for self-incrimination in cases where there are security concerns.[18] Some information is important in legal practice and sharing responsibilities between the high court and court of appeal prevents unlawful practices.  This gives the legal system a human rights obligation and is critical in legal practice and additional submission.

Whether the judge penalizes the client for initially refusing to respond to the court order or not depends on the issues at hand. The client answers to the court order based on the Constitution and the Evidence Act serves as a reference point. However, the client may receive regrettable results due misconceptions or misrepresentation of facts. Sometimes the legal system can go wrong and this is the reason for constant amendments to statutes.[19] Assessing the effectiveness of the legal system is a concern that calls for harmonization in order to prevent unnecessary controls that violate human rights laws. This is common in complex criminal cases and it prevents the crisis in the application of the law. Constitutional arguments vary according to the contexts. The judge may have made ruling in the first trial based on the textual argument. The judge may be using the textual argument to apply the original meaning of a constitutional clause. The stipulated constitutional needs. When it comes to precedents, amendments are more effective and purpose driven. A good example is the recent developments on Alternative dispute resolutions.[20] This option considers the most practical and effective alternative to court disputes. This may be a solution to civil cases but present a challenge for the criminal offenses. The Supreme Court structure builds on the high court approach giving solutions on power limits. Counter-arguments about the use of reasonable legislation depends on the court's definition of what is reasonable or not.

How Courts of Appeal Affirm or Overrule Legal Decisions

Under the Constitution, the Judge has the power under the Constitution to offer protection and ensure compliance. Therefore, a judge provides interpretation of the constitution as well as its application. Concerned with the protection of rights, constitutionalism gives the judiciary autonomy and protection of rights. Sometimes judgments do not turn out fairly but the client has a right to appeal. The Federal Court has an opportunity to hear appeals from a single judge bench, a jury.[21] Appeals may occur when the legal application is wrong and the fact-finding approach lacks evidence. Adherence to the constitutional requirements separates improper codes and encourages the court to the application of the constitution. Set up under Chapter 3 the judiciary supports the Australian common law within the high court and Federal courts[22].

Legal advice incorporates information useful in the interpretation of the constitution. The client requires an accurate representation of the procedures, different rights and the evidence given. Police questioning often serves as evidence and may serve as evidence against the client. Questions arise on whether the Evidence Act works against itself because both the lower and higher courts have rights under the Constitution. However, variations in the interpretations create the big difference.[23] Chapter III becomes an invalid act when there are frustrations within the high court. Sometimes the court of appeal may dismiss an appeal based on lack of evidence or hearsay. This has been the case with prominent cases like Baker v The Queen, in which Khalid Baker is dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence. Federal jurisdiction gives wisdom to the high court and serves as a reference point for the higher courts. In chapter III judges have limitations as the level in which they can exercise their powers. Both the state and commonwealth legislation attest to this. Chapter III is a case law with a framework model that interprets the constitution. The 2006 case between Forge v Australian Securities and investments is a perfect example of challenges to the dues process and the trial by a jury.[24] Fundamental functions and powers of court systems at the appeal level shows restrictions on how to handle different types of disputes through standard procedure and supporting legislation.

The application of constitutional law whose foundation is constitutional theory is dependent on the legal principles[25]  Appellate Jurisdiction of the High Court gives power to the court for the determination of judgments, orders, and sentences. This gives the client hope for an appeal. In this quest for justice, the decision is final and a positive conclusion is ideal. However, the appeal process has a limitation in that it works within the limits of the constitution. The due process of jurisdiction separates the judicial power and the doctrines. The court of appeal has roots in the Commonwealth judicial system, which provides guidelines for criminal and civil cases. Useful in multidisciplinary levels, case laws continue to exist as sources of fair trials in civil and criminal cases. The court has jurisdiction to exercise powers within the constitutional principles. An efficient due process is relevant and purpose driven. Integrity and professionalism highlight the constitutional mandate of the due process and the process of enforcing decisions in the legal system. The constitutional principles such as separation of powers allow the high court to function freely without interference from the federal court. However, there is a need for the separation of legal doctrines.

A Case Example involving a Client Facing Convictions and the Constitutional Provisions in a Court of Law

The application of legal standards within the Australian standards dictates legal proceedings in the judiciary. These determine who handles what and when. The principles give a due process in which the client can address the legal issue differently. At the appeals level, the client deserves a fair trial during court proceedings including cross-examination. This is the high law of the land and justice is mandatory. As courts designed for justice, these face contemporary challenges such as the provision of competent jurisdiction. Essence the federal court holds the respect and powers. When a judge upholds the ruling of a high court, they are at the same level. However, sometimes a supreme court demonstrates its independent rules such as the definition of terms. [26]. This independence supports basic human rights as stipulated under the procedural and criminal case law proceedings.

The application of due process in case law covers an array of practices. Besides the criminal and civil laws, legal proceedings define terms of judgment redefining the justice system. Although engraved in procedural justice, it is substantive in legislation. This means that judges have their own interpretation of legal concepts such as human rights. Coined after the UK system the court of Appeal reflects a merger between the Australian common law, international human rights convention and the high court or constitutional law. Spheres of influence for the due process include the public hearing where the client presents a case before a group of jurists who listen and give a verdict. Fairness in legal procedures operates under the principle of legality and a bill of rights.  In a constitutional case, separation of powers is important for controlled delivery of the law enforcement process.[27] Covered under the Crimes Act of the juridical system, this rationale facilitates for the application of the common law. Law informant officers, in this case, operate within the stated principles for the common good. In this case, unlawful conduct is punishable by law. The court upholds the constitution and supports future amendments. Changes in the legal system start by identifying gaps in the constitution. Federal legislation works closely with the courts for necessary changes as seen in different cases. Procedural laws such as environmental and industry-specific laws use duty-based approaches to decision making. Violation leads to negligence and its use of common law and natural justice enhance statutory principles in the corporate world. Justice, in this case, refers to procedural fairness. Government agencies have specific roles that support the common law for the individual rights. Procedural fairness includes giving convicted persons a fair judgment through a proper hearing, trial and appeal process.  Selective justice is unfair and it corrupts the legal system.

The Australian constitution pays attention to the right to be heard, procedural fairness, and the bill of rights. Its principals of legality support the use of power under certain rights that people need and their freedoms. Based on legal arguments, drawings and precedents, the Australian legal system combines traditional and modern applications. Therefore, the laws are what people easily recognize. Legal arguments at the high court will revolve around these ideas, different sources and legal systems[28]. From the case analysis, the Supreme Court has strengths and weaknesses. When judges make decisions on a case, they focus on the most persuasive evidence tabled for them. The legal fraternity capitalizes on all kinds of sources in order to build a strong case. There are historical arguments with examples for modern day to shape legal and policy arguments. The development of a reasoning system presents logical arguments to enable a client to win a case. Therefore, the law carries statutes, regulations, and ordinances that citizens adhere to for peace and order. Although there are criminals who are keen on disobedience, some good people end up in the wrong place despite good intentions. Unfairness through corruption is also widespread in the legal system. Inconsistency in the judicial power raises questions about the effectiveness of a due process. Justice administration challenges need effective solutions to boost the public confidence. Criminal proceedings involve procedural justice and administrative fairness. This calls for institutional integrity across the lower and higher levels of justice.

Conclusion

Obstruction of justice occurs across different levels of the Australian judicial system. Among this is the procedural, administrative, and legal systems. In order to understand the conceptualization of justice in any legal system, it is important to have insight into its structure, history, due processes, and constitutional framework. The Australian legal system prides itself on a federal court that supports appeals in case of dissatisfied judgments at a high court level. However, challenges such as lack of integrity and misinterpretation of the law and mistakes arise because of institutional and individual characteristics. As a result, many people languish in prisons waiting for justice with accusations and convictions they know nothing about.

Legislation

  Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, Appeals from courts

  Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), Sect 38 (1)

  Criminal Code Act 1995, Section 13.2

  Evidence Act, Section 141

  Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s15 (1A) 

Gray, Anthony, Criminal Due Process and Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, Federation Press, 2016

Evidence Amendment Act 2013 (NSW)

Petty and Maiden v R-[1991] HCA 34

Cases

 Nicholas v the Queen [1998] 193 CLR 173 (‘Nicholas)

 Williams v commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 https://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/23.html

 Forge v Australian Securities and investments Commission, [2006] HCA 44

 Ruddock v Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1329                                                 

 Commonwealth v Kreglinger (1926) 37 CLR 413

 Kiefel, B, J; Crennan, H; French, C, J, X7 v The Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29

 Law handbook, Case Law, Legal Services Commission of South Australia, https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch27s02s01.php

 The Australian Constitution Act 1900, Chapter III. The Judicature, Appellate Jurisdiction of High court, Federal Register of Legislation, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004C00469

 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), Sect 38 (1) Privilege of witness.  https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ea197780/

Other sources

Blackshie Anthony, Blaskshield and Williams Australian Constitutional Law Theory: Commentary and Materials & Materials, Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press, 2014

Rod, McGuirk, Australia’s high court begins hearing citizenship cases that could collapse the county’s government, The independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-dual-citizenship-case-high-court-constitutional-ban-parliament-barnaby-joyce-scott-lundlum-a7992631.html

Anthony Blackshield, Blaskshield and Williams, Australian Constitutional Law Theory: Commentary and Materials & Materials, Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press, 2014

McGuirk, Rod, Australia’s high court begins hearing citizenship cases that could collapse the county’s government, The independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-dual-citizenship-case-high-court-constitutional-ban-parliament-barnaby-joyce-scott-lundlum-a7992631.html

Martin, Wayne, Australian Dispute Centre, 6 March 2018

Kommers, Donald and Russel Miller, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal republic of Germany, 2012, Duke University Press

Brown, Ray, Fact and Law Judicial Review, Harvard Law Review, Vol 56 (6), pp 899-928

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979-AustLII, Act No. 113 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012C00260

Lambert, A; Pentane, P, Law Council recommends reform to continuing detention order, control order regimes, the Law council of Australia, https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/law-council-recommends-reform-to-continuing-detention-order--control-order-regimes

Simon Matters, “Anything You Don’t Say May Be Given in Evidence: Protecting the Interests of Justice Simon or Emasculating a Fundamental Right?” 9 1997) 4 (1), Deakin Law Review 49

Nedim, Ugur, The Right to Remain silent, NSW, April 2014, https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/the-right-to-remain-silent/014/23.html