The Criminal Trial: Court Observation Report

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Summary of cases observed

List No	Date	Time	Listing Type	Jurisdiction	Court	Presiding Officer	Location	Court Room	Case Title/Party	Case Number
1	21/ 5	09:30	Judgment	Criminal	District	Judge S Norrish	Downing Centre	Crt 1.4 Downing Ctr	R v ALI EL MASRI	201100074249
–	21 /5?	10:00	Judgment	Criminal	District	Judge S Norrish	Downing Centre	Crt 1.4 Downing Ctr	R v EMAN MASRI	201100074376
–	21 5?	10:00	Judgment	Criminal	District	Judge S Norrish	Downing Centre	Crt 1.4 Downing Ctr	R v MAYAS EL-MASRI	201100112409

Description of judges in cases observed

This particular case was observed on the 13thof March 2013 at 2:20 p.m. The charges of the case were robbery with violence. The judge in the case of robbery with violence was very authoritative and seemed to be very conversant with his work. He carefully assessed all the evidence presented before him before delivering his final judgment. He was well conversant with the law and was able to pass a fair judgment.

He was a male judge who seemed to be in his early 40s. He could have been 42 years old. In this case, the accused was found guilty of the crime and the outcome of the judgment was that he would serve a minimum of ten years in prison. The judge was quite helpful to the accused who was unrepresented and gave him enough time to speak for himself. Moreover, he told the accused he could have the services of a state attorney so that he could be well represented in the court if he wanted.

How the judges/magistrate directed the court proceedings

In the murder case observed on March 12th, 2013, the judge began by calling upon the accused. He read out their charges to them and gave them time to plead to the charges of which they pleaded not guilty. He then called upon the witnesses of the case whom he cross-examined. Using the evidence gathered in the case, he pressed his charges against the accused (Bohler, Gomien & Maehlum, 2000). The judge checked if the evidence was admissible in court. He did not direct the jury but allowed them to make their independent conclusion.

Description of lawyers in the proceedings

The lawyers in the proceedings were aged between 32-45 years. Two of them were male. There was only one lady. The lawyers were quite involved in the cases and they dominated 70% of the case. They were arguing on behalf of their clients, the accused. The accused that were represented were involved by their lawyers in the case who requested them to provide more information. Lawyers are normally supposed to fully represent the defendants by giving information that concerns their case as requested by the Judge.

However, they can choose not to involve the accused in the case proceedings depending on the amount of information they had gathered from them about the case. The lawyers allowed some of the accused to stand in the box for cross-examinations because they felt that would help them win the case. They represented their clients well. Those who were unrepresented were in a position to argue out their cases as well with the assistance of the Judges. Besides, the lawyers involved them in the case by cross-examining them.

Description of jurors in the proceedings

The jurors were between the ages of 35 -40 years. There was an equal number of males as that of females. Their role was to listen to the evidence presented and then decide if the accused were guilty or not (Dawkins, 2012). They formed an integral part of the court proceedings as they gave unbiased advice concerning the case proceedings. The juror is not versed in law and their verdict is unbiased because they do not know the loopholes in the law and call the case as they see it and their involvement is significant.

Ways in which the parties and the judge deal with the Jury

The jury sits in private to deliberate on matters. In court, it sits as an observer who listens to charges and determines the outcome but does not press charges against the accused (Gerry, 2012). The jury is considered important in the course of the case, and their contribution is valued and determines the outcome of the case. The parties appeal to the jury to make a verdict in their favor by presenting persuasive arguments and trying to win the juror over. On the other hand, the judge appeals to the juror to be fair in their judgment.

Issues that would have been addressed differently in a non- Australian jurisdiction

Australian courts uphold the principles of fairness and judicial precedent (Gleeson, 2001). The government requires that the accused be legally represented in the courts of law to ensure justice. The law treats the defendants as innocent until the trial proves them guilty. In the case concerning drug abuse, the accused was treated with a lot of fairness unlike if the case that would have been outside Australia. The judge was very involved, despite the magnitude of the case. He carefully took the court through the case proceedings in a fair trial before making his final judgment. However, in a non-adversarial jurisdiction, the accused would not have the advantage of having a juror listen to their case and the better side winning depending on how well they convince the judge and the jury that they are right hence getting a guilty or not guilty verdict.

The other thing is that the accused would not have been considered innocent until proven guilty, but would have been treated as a criminal and denied a fair trial that would have denied him justice. For example, in the case, the accused were allowed to have lawyers and those not represented were guided accordingly by the judge.

References

Bohler, G., Gomien, D. & Maehlum, M. (2000). Trial observation. Norway: University of Oslo, Norwegian Center for Human Rights.

Dawkins, R. (2012). O.J Simpson wouldn’t be so lucky again, New statesman. Web.

Gerry, F. (2012), Trial by jury: the importance of “ordinary” Jurors, Halsbury Law Exchange. Web.

Gleeson, M. (2001). Courts and the rule of law: The rule of law series. Melbourne: Melbourne University.

Click Here To Order Now!