3 The Court System

The Court System
• Adversarial v Inquisitorial System
• Alternative Dispute Resolution
• Courts
• The Doctrine of Precedent
• Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta
• People Involved in Legal Disputes
• Tribunals
• Ombudsman

Adversarial System
 Each party fights out the dispute in court
 This is to decide who has the best evidence to prove their case and defeat their
adversary
 Evidence is presented by one party and then the other
 This is in the aim to cause serious damage to the original argument and involves
evidence as well as cross-examination
 Judge is an independent umpire
 Ensures a fair trial by enforcing strict rules of court procedures and evidence
 Judge or jury decides who wins
 This is based on the laws that apply and the decision is final (unless they appeal)
 Judge decides questions of law, jury decides questions of fact
paul.white@groves.qld.edu.au 11 Legal Studies
2

Inquisitorial System
 The judge conducts their own investigation into the evidence, before and during the court
case
 Basically, the judge takes over the roles of the disputing parties their legal representatives
 By looking into the matter before trial begins the judge plays a central role in deciding what issues
are important and what evidence should be presented
 Evidence is often collected by the magistrate
 The accused may be questioned several times before the charge is laid
 Distinctions between police and judiciary are not as defined
 No jury
 Judge decides questions of law and fact
3

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
 Court is not the only solution
 Only a small percentage of disputes are resolved in court
 Disputes arise when someone believes they have been wronged by
someone
 Can be from waiting in line too long (you feel wronged by the shop staff) to your
sibling being murdered (you feel wronged by the murderer)
4

 Ways to resolve disputes:
 ‘Lumping’ the grievance
 Exit and avoidance
 Redirecting
 Naming, blaming and claiming
 Negotiation
 Mediation
 Expert determination/case appraisal
 Arbitration
 Adjudication by a court/tribunal
5

Scenario #1:
You arrive at your hairdresser appointment time and are kept waiting for an
hour, causing you to be late for work and having your pay ‘docked’.
 ‘Lumping’ the grievance
 You get annoyed, but don’t mention it. These things happen.
 Exit and Avoidance
 You decide never to go again – exit and avoid
 Redirecting
 You redirect the cause of the problem by deciding it wasn’t the hairdresser’s fault,
but the person before you
 By choosing any of these you have avoided conflict and it has not become a
dispute
6

Scenario #2:
Hairdresser leaves colour dye in your hair too long on your wedding day and you end up with bright purple hair.
You complain and refuse to pay. He says you didn’t explain what you wanted properly and demands you pay $150.
You rush to another hairdresser who charges $250 to take out the colour and give you what you want.
 Naming, Blaming and Claiming
 Named the grievance, blamed the hairdresser, claimed compensation of some sort. If the hairdresser denies it, you are in a dispute.
 The rest of the options deal with how to resolve this
 Negotiation
 Compromise via negotiation between the two parties. The hairdresser might agree to redo your hair for no extra cost.
 Mediation
 If you can’t compromise, then a third person is needed. The third party tries to assist in resolving the dispute without a legally binding
solution. What you do with the mediators resolutions is up to you.
 Expert determination/case appraisal
 Often used to assist mediation. You seek the opinion of an expert and they advise you of the best possible outcome.
 If you cannot reach a solution from these, you can have a third part impose a solution on you.
7

 Arbitration
 You must agree on an arbitrator and be bound by their decision.
 You may go back to the mediator and ask them to arbitrate for you.
 This is more formal than mediation and is governed by relevant Arbitration Acts
 Adjudication by a court/tribunal
 This is a formal hearing and testing of the evidence
 An adjudication is made, which means the judge will impose a decision on both
parties which is legally binding  this is what we will look at next!
8

Courts
 Two roles of courts:
 Resolve disputes
 Determine if the law has been broken and uphold those laws to society
9

 Jurisdiction (the authority of the court to hear a certain matter)
 Geographic jurisdiction – based on where the offence was committed
 Ie. An offence committed in Qld would not usually be heard in a WA court
 Civil and criminal jurisdiction – based on the nature of the offence
 Most courts can hear both of these cases
 Original and appellate jurisdiction – based on the when the case is heard
 Original is the first time a case is heard, appellate is every time after that
10

 A case is first heard in the original jurisdiction
 If you lose on this occasion you can appeal
 You cannot appeal simply because you didn’t like the judge/magistrate’s decision,
there must be a valid legal reason
 Your case is then heard by a higher court
11

12
High Court of
Australia
Original/Appellate
Supreme Court
Qld
Original/Appellate
District Court
Original/Appellate
Magistrates Court
Original
Federal Court
Original/Appellate
Family Court
Original/Appellate
Federal
Magistrates Court
Original
Hierarchy of Queensland
& Federal Courts
See also the PDF of the same name on Learner.Link for
more detailed information as well as p.28 of the textbook
HighestLowest

 One event can lead to both a civil and criminal case, for example…
Civil Case
 Rihanna is seeking compensation from Chris after a car accident
 Chris’s car hit Rihanna’s car, damaging it and also injuring Rihanna
 The person bringing the case is called the plaintiff
 The person who is being sued is called the defendant
 The case name will be in the format of plaintiff v defendant (the ‘v’ is said as ‘and’)
 What will this case be called?
13

 In a civil case, the plaintiff’s lawyer must prove the case (prove they are
right)
 Rihanna must prove why she is entitled to compensation
 This means the plaintiff has the burden of proof or onus of proof – basically
means, they have the job of proving their argument; the burden is on them
 Rihanna has to prove that the defendant is legally responsible for the injury
or damage suffered and there are legal principles that entitle her to
compensation
14

 The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities
 That the case described by the plaintiff is more likely than not to be true
 Rihanna has to prove that her case is stronger than the defendant’s
 It doesn’t have to be much stronger, 51% likely to be true is enough, 49% is not
 Once the plaintiff has proved their case, it is up to the defendant to prove that there are
reasons why the plaintiff should not win
 This means the defendant’s lawyer has the onus of proof in relation to any defences to the
action
 Chris might hold the defence that Rihanna was speeding
 If he can prove that it is 51% likely she was speeding and that this caused the accident then he will win the
case
 In a civil case the defendant is found liable or not liable to compensate the plaintiff
15

 Remember, when someone commits a criminal offence, the Government takes legal
action against them
 So, let’s say the Govt charges Rihanna with speeding
 The victim, Chris, makes a complaint to the police who investigate the accident and could
charge Rihanna if satisfied
 The Government lawyer is called the prosecutor, and they aim to prove the case against
Rihanna – she is the defendant
 The case name will be R v defendant, or The Queen v defendant or The Crown v
defendant – R stands ‘Regina’ or ‘Rex’, the monarch
 What would the case now be called?
16
FYI: Rihanna’s real name is Robyn Fenty – Rihanna is her middle name…Wikipedia said so

 In a criminal case, the Govt has to prove Rihanna has broken the law – they
have the onus of proof
 The onus of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
 The Govt must show the jury that there is no doubt Rihanna was speeding
 If there is some good reason to doubt whether the defendant broke the law, they
should be found ‘not guilty’
 In a criminal case the defendant is acquitted or convicted
17

 In an appeal a higher court will decide if it agrees with the decision of the previous court
 If it disagrees, it can overturn the decision
 An appeal is not a re-trial, it is just a re-considering of the evidence
 A court hearing an appeal operates with a Full Court – this means there are several judges
and no jury
 In an appeal the case is named as appellant v respondent
 So if Rihanna appeals her guilty charge of speeding, what would the case name be?
 If Rihanna won the civil case against Chris, and then Chris appealed, what would that case
be called?
18

The Doctrine of Precedent
 Common law is based on the doctrine of precedent
 Doctrine of Precedent: idea that case decision-making needs to be
consistent; when deciding a case, a judge will consider how similar cases
were decided previously
19

 You get in trouble for handing in your assignment 1 week late, but your
teacher lets you off because a family member passed away
 Next time an assignment is due, your friend hands it in 1 week late and
expects the same treatment because they also had a family member pass
away
 You get in trouble for handing in your assignment 3 weeks late, but you
explain that your house burnt down and you lost everything, and so your
teacher lets you off
 Next time an assignment is due, your friend hands it in 3 weeks late, saying
that they couldn’t connect to their printer, the teacher gets cranky and
marks their rubbish draft assignment instead
 What’s the difference and how does it relate to the definition of
precedent?
20
Scenario 1
Scenario 2

 In scenario one, your friend would rightly expect the same treatment, and
would complain if they didn’t get it (assuming they knew about the
extension your teacher gave you)
 In scenario two, your friends ‘case’ isn’t similar enough to be treated the
same as yours
21

 The precedent systems aims to ensure that like cases are decided alike
 This ends with consistent decision-making
 Which in turn leads to a respect for the legal system
 If the decision was different in scenario one earlier for your friend, then respect
for the systems and policies of the school and/or teacher would falter
 Judges need to be impartial – not take sides – if the teacher in the scenario
liked you better than your friend, and this was the basis of their decision-
making, it could turn out quite unfair
22

 Two types of precedent:
 Binding precedent
 Persuasive precedent
23

 Binding precedent rules:
 Courts must accept and use any relevant legal principles and rules decided by a
higher court
 If there are conflicting relevant legal principles from multiple higher courts, it must
accept the principles from the highest court
 Cases in the original jurisdiction of a court with an appellate jurisdiction must
accept the decision of their appellate counterpart/same court as a Full Court
24

 Persuasive precedent rules:
 A court does not have to accept the legal principles of a lower court
 A court does not need to accept any decisions made by that previous or
equivalent court (but they often do)
 If there are is no precedent in a higher court, the court may look to other
jurisdictions, such as other states or countries (with similar legal systems)
 The court at the top of the hierarchy (the High Court) may use principles
developed in other countries
25

How precedent is used in common law
 How alike do cases have to be to be decided the same?
 It is only the reasons for the decision that are classified as precedent
 Similar issue cases are important, not similar fact cases
 Example:
 A District Court judge is dealing with a charge of assault against a young man. The
police claim that the assault took place on the beach at Surfers Paradise late at
night. The accused person admits that he punched the victim. However, he says he
did it after the victim threatened to stab him. (ie. Self-defence, which is legal in
Qld)…the judge is aware of two precedent cases:
26

 Case 1:
 Last year, the High Court was considering the case of another person involved in an
incident on the beach at Surfers Paradise late at night. The accused person was charged
with raping a woman. The case involved whether the woman consented to the acts
taking place or not. The court decided that she did not, and the accused person was
found guilty of rape. The court said that just because the woman agreed to go to the
beach late at night with the man, and kissed the man, did not mean that she consented
to having sexual relations with him.
 Case 2:
 Five years ago in Rockhampton, the Qld Supreme Court considered a case involving two
men who had been drinking at a hotel. One of the men was charged with assault after
he hit the other over the head with a bar stool. However, the court found him not
guilty of assault. The victim had threatened the accused with a broken glass. The court
concluded that the accused person was acting in self-defence.
27

 Which precedent should the judge use? Case 1 or Case 2?
 Consider whether the facts or the issues are relevant.
28

 Case 1 has some similar facts, but is a different issue – rape is very different
to assault and self-defence
 The reasons for the decision of case one are to do with the fact that no
consent prior to sexual relations can constitute rape, no matter the other
person has done
 Case 2 is relevant because it decided when a person could be said to be
acting in self-defence, which is similar to the case at hand
29

Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta
 The reasons for a case decision are important because they can become part of
common law
 The legal term for these reasons is the ratio decidendi (Latin for ‘the rationale
for the decision’) – sometimes ‘ratio’ for short
 The ratio can be hard to work out
 Cases can be long
 Judges say things that are irrelevant and unnecessary to deciding the case
 The legal term for these statements that are not part of the decision is obiter
dicta (Latin for ‘something that is said in passing’) – sometimes obiter for short
30

 Example, using the Surfers Paradise case from before:
 The court decides that because the man feared for his safety and did not use
excessive force, he is not guilty of assault on the grounds of self-defence.
However, the court added that if the man had used much more physical force, or
used a gun, this may have been excessive force and he may not have been able to
claim self-defence. The court stated that people have a right to feel safe walking
on the beach.
 What is ratio and what is obiter?
31

 Example, using the Surfers Paradise case from before:
 The court decides that because the man feared for his safety and did not use
excessive force, he is not guilty of assault on the grounds of self-defence.
However, the court added that if the man had used much more physical force, or
used a gun, this may have been excessive force and he may not have been able to
claim self-defence. The court stated that people have a right to feel safe walking
on the beach.
32
Ratio decidendi – these are the reasons for the decision
Obiter dicta – not necessary for the court to say this.
However, when could it be useful?

33
People Involved in Legal Disputes
 For this topic, you will independently research who the people involved in
legal disputes are
 ie. Without your friends, but feel free to ask Google (or even Wikipedia as a
starting point*) and your teacher
 A good place to start is your textbook, pp30-32
 From this, you can do your own research to find out extra information
 Find diagrams of the layout of the court room for a civil and a criminal trial
 Make sure they are Australian/Queensland based – we don’t need information on
Malaysian, Peruvian, Swedish, Nicaraguan or any other countries courts
 From the information you have gathered, create a short informational
PowerPoint – as if you had to teach it to a, let’s say, Year 11 Legal Studies
class…
* Wikipedia is good to start from, not to reference. DO NOT use it as a reference point for assessment work

3 The Court System

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 3 The Court System

Similar to 3 The Court System (20)

More from paulwhite1983

More from paulwhite1983 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

3 The Court System