Legal Studies predictions/thoughts (1 Viewer)

user282828

user282828

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
42
Gender
Female
HSC
2023
idkimstressedlol said:
do you reckon in criminal trial process it would be ok if i talk about presumption of innocence and mention how the bail amendments infringe upon this presumption?? or is that not a good idea because then i would be talking about criminal investigation process here is my essay plan

Presumption of innocence:


Is the crux of the criminal trial process, although not protected by legislation comes from article 14 ICCPR bail is inexplicitly linked with criminal trial process due to presumption of innocence


  • Important as it ensures a person accused of a crime will be treated as being innocent until proven guilty --> people are protected from unnecessary mistreatment
  • Prosecutor has burden of proof--> pressure on police to gather compelling evidence rather then accused responsibility to prove innocence
  • amendments to the bail act to decide if a person should be held in remand--> infringes on POI--> 2013 unacceptable risk test--> 38 days later Bail amendment Act 2014 (NSW) --> added show cause test --> reversed onus of proof --> infringes upon presumption of innocence
  • Bail Amendment Act 2015 (NSW)--> accused of terrorism always needs to be held in remand
  • Ineffective as presumption of innocence is not upheld
Click to expand...
id say so
 
A

akabiryaniboy

New Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2023
Messages
3
Gender
Male
HSC
2023
its_ace21 said:
'The criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently in order to achieve justice’
To what extent is this statement true?

Young offenders do not have the same mental and decision-making capabilities of an adult; therefore the criminal justice system must treat them differently in order to achieve justice. Such a notion has been incorporated within New South Wales laws regarding the age of criminal responsibility, rights of children when being questioned and the penalties given to them. Despite varying public opinion these laws have been significantly effective in both protecting children within the legal system and facilitating just outcomes. Thus, the above statement holds true to a powerful extent.

In order for an individual to commit a crime they must be able to fully understand the consequences of their actions and possess criminal intent, known as mens rea. Despite the inability of children to form such intent, historically they were treated in the same way as adult offenders, with children as young as eight being imprisoned in Australia. Today in NSW, the Children's (CP) Act 1987 lays out the minimum age of criminal responsibility Doli Incapax). Section 5 of the Act states that 'it shall be conclusively presumed that no child who is under the age of ten can be guilty of an offence'. Furthermore, for children between 10-13 yrs old a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax is found within common law. This implies doli incapax exists however it is not conditional and may be refuted if the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the child understood the wrongfulness of their actions Such concepts were prominent within the R y LMW case of 1999. LMW, who was 10 at the time of the offence, was playing with his friends along Georges River in Sydney. He threw six-year-old Corey Davis into the water knowing that he could not swim, which caused Davis to drown. The Children's Court ruled the offender not guilty of manslaughter as he had not understood the consequences of his actions. The matter was referred to the DPP, who in response to public pressure charged the offender with manslaughter. In the Supt Ct the case was quickly dismissed as it was found the prosecution had not met their burden in proving criminal intent was present. LMW was acquitted of all charges. Thus, through treating young offenders like LMW differently with regard to criminal responsibility, the criminal justice system is able to reach just outcomes by preventing the imprisonment of innocent youth and the drastic future effects which would emerge as a result.

The rights of children when being questioned are strictly regulated within the justice system.
Section 13 of the Children's (CP) Act 1987 states that any information given to a member of the police force by a child shall not be admitted unless the person responsible for the child, a legal practitioner or adult of the child's choosing was present when the statement was made. This ensures that young offenders are not coerced nor intimidated by police into giving information which may be harmful to them. Furthermore, the presence of a third-party aims to provide the child with advice and support during the questioning process. In 2001 such rights were overlooked within the R v Phung case (NSW Sup Ct). Phung was charged with murder and multiple robberies. He made admissions in two police interviews, however the admissibility of each of these was challenged. In the first interview Phung told the detective he was 17 yrs old and the detective informed that he would not speak to him further until an adult was present. Phung's 21-year-old cousin remained with him, and the police insisted they speak in their presence. Some of the concerns CJ Wood raised included the immaturity of Phung's cousin, the failure of the detectives to allow Phung to speak to his cousin privately and the lack of effort made to contact the solicitor who had previously acted for Phung. In the second interview Phung was given a Salvation Army officer as his support person. The officer was not informed about the case charges and was denied the opportunity to speak privately with Phung. Ultimately, CJ Wood refused to admit both interviews on the basis that they infringed upon the child's rights. Although both defendants eventually plead guilty and received a significant prison term, this judgement demonstrated a strong level of effectiveness in terms of protecting young people's rights in custody. Therefore, by treating young offenders in custody differently to adults, just outcomes which protect children rights are achieved.

The primary focus when sentencing a young offender is rehabilitation rather than deterrence.
This is because a term of imprisonment will have a much more drastic effect on the life of a child rather than an adult and often predispose them to further crime. The Children's (CP) Act 1987 clearly outlines rehabilitation to be of utmost importance when sentencing a young offender. Such a notion is clearly emphasised within the R v GDP case of 1991 GDP who was 14 at the time of the offence, committed serious criminal damage to property with two of his friends. The damage included breaking through a window, drilling a safe, defacing cars and lighting dangerous fires that in total added up to $550 000 in damage. GDP had no prior incidents and was well regarded by his teachers however despite this he was sentenced to a 12-month custodial sentence. GDP appealed to the CCA where a panel of three judges held that the sentence was manifestly excessive. In explanation the court stated 'sentencing principles for children are different from those of adults. In this case a custodial sentence would have been positively damaging to GDP's rehabilitation as he was by this time commencing Year 12 and facing his HSC. As a result, the court overruled the original sentence and replaced it with a 12-month probation order. Such an outcome is just as it takes into account the rehabilitation of GDP and how a prison sentence may affect his future, while also ensuring that reoffending does not occur through a good behaviour period. Hence, through the criminal justice system treating young offenders differently to adults during sentencing procedures just outcomes are achieved.

In conclusion, the criminal justice system must treat young offenders differently to adults in order to achieve just outcomes. This is evident when examining New South Wales laws in relation to the age of criminal responsibility, the rights of children when being questioned and the sentences given to young offenders. Ultimately, such legislation is highly effective in acknowledging that youth do not have the same decision making capabilities of adults and deals with them accordingly.
Click to expand...
good essay ngl, uve got so much though, its only a matter of how much you can fit in an exam
 
amy.q18

amy.q18

Active Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2023
Messages
92
Gender
Female
HSC
2023
hated the crime question, family omg was an angel, consumers heh 🔫
 
breadcrumbs

breadcrumbs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2023
Messages
298
Gender
Female
HSC
2023
guys the crime qn was so good

but oh my god i almost had a panic attack during the exam bc i had my crime essay booklet underneath my options essay booklet and i had it open to like the second page bc i changed my mind and wanted to do options before crime, and rhen when i flipped over my options booklet to go to the second page i ended up accidentally writing a WHOLE ENTIRE PAGE of my options essay into the crime essay booklet, so then i HAD TO REWRITE IT INTO THE RIGHT BOOJLET

BRO WHY AM I LITERALLY SO DUMB I WASTED LIKE 7 MINS but at least i still finished in the end
 
amy.q18

amy.q18

Active Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2023
Messages
92
Gender
Female
HSC
2023
for the mc where the person is 14 and committed a summary offence what did u guys choose like they must answer all the questions or they cannot be charged with the offence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top